Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL

BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL (By Order)

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (IMPROVEMENTS) BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

BRADFORD CORPORATION (CONDITIONING HOUSE) BILL (By Order)

WATFORD CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Rates, Gloucestershire

Mr. Ridley: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what estimate he has made of the average change in the rates which householders in Gloucestershire will have to pay following revaluation, assuming the county council incur the same expenditure as during the current year.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir Keith Joseph): I would refer my hon. Friend to the estimate in the White Paper published last March. I hope within the next few weeks to publish analyses showing for each county, county borough and metropolitan borough the

distribution of rateable value among the main classes of property in the old and new lists.

Mr. Ridley: Do I take it from that reply that the average share which householders in Gloucestershire may be asked to pay might decrease by 4 per cent. if the expenditure remains the same? Would my right hon. Friend agree that if rates rise it will be because better services are being provided by the local authority?

Sir K. Joseph: I think I can safely agree to the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. As to the first part, however, I must ask him to be patient until I publish the analyses.

Green Belts

Mr. Boardman: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will investigate the effect of green belts on land prices in urban areas adjoining green belts.

Sir K. Joseph: No, Sir.

Mr. Boardman: As the green belts are generally located around towns which already are desperately short of land and, in consequence, there is a fantastic effect on land prices, would not the Minister agree that some less rigid form of control is necessary? Will he ensure that areas already scheduled are subject to periodic review?

Sir K. Joseph: I have to be careful here, because obviously we must reconcile the needs of the present with the needs of the future. I cannot, however, see that because restrictions force up prices in the neighbourhood that is a necessary reason for removing all restrictions. The important thing is to see that an adequate supply of land is forthcoming the whole time.

Mr. Sydney Irving: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he proposes to make any change in the metropolitan green belt policy pursued by his predecessors; and if he will make a statement.

Sir K. Joseph: I have no intention of abandoning the green belt policy. I hope shortly to explain my views on the general housing situation in London, and shall say more then about the green belt.

Mr. Irving: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as The Times said in its first leader yesterday, his statements on this matter have aroused suspicion and that his denial of any intention of raiding the green belt makes more enigmatic his assertion about the supply of land? Will he bear in mind that any serious interference with the metropolitan green belt will destroy one of Britain's finest planning achievements? Can he say nothing at all now about his statement?

Sir K. Joseph: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman await my statement. I repeat that I have no intention of abandoning the policy of my predecessors. I am convinced that the green belt has a permanent part to play in the planning of Greater London.

Mr. M. Stewart: Will the right hon. Gentleman also remember that the policy of his predecessors included an explicit statement by the present Home Secretary that he objected even to nibbling at bits of the green belt?

Peterlee and Newton Aycliffe

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he has come to a decision on the amalgamation of the new towns of Peterlee and Newton Aycliffe; what is the nature of the new personnel responsible for administration; and whether the local authorities in the area have been consulted.

Sir K. Joseph: I am now consulting the local authorities on the proposal to appoint one board of eight people to be the corporations of these towns. Seven of the eight are already members of one or other of those corporations.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Easington Council, which is closely associated with certain aspects of administration in the town of Peterlee, has not yet been consulted? Why not appoint a member of Easington Council to the joint corporation of Peterlee because of the need for harmonising relations between the two bodies?

Sir K. Joseph: It is important to harmonise these relations, but one has to cover a wide range of subjects in the membership in order to make sure that there is someone with knowledge of

each of the most important aspects. While local representation is very important, we have to keep a balance.

Mr. Slater: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether, in view of the announcement that one development corporation will be responsible for the new towns of Newton Aycliffe and Peterlee, he will give consideration to the appointment of a resident of Newton Aycliffe to this corporation.

Sir K. Joseph: I think it important that some members of a new town corporation should live near to the town, but I cannot undertake always to find one who lives in the town. Much must depend on getting the right balance of experience and qualifications on the board.

Mr. Slater: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, although the idea of setting up one board to cover these two new towns has been well-accepted by the local authorities in that area, the composition of the board so far is shocking and an insult? Surely it is not too much to ask that someone be appointed to the board from Newton Aycliffe itself? Is it not possible to appoint to the board a resident of one of the new towns it will cover?

Sir K. Joseph: I am in consultation with the local authorities concerned, and I hope that when the final decisions are made they will not be greeted by any such comments as the hon. Gentleman indicates.

Mr. Slater: A new board is to be set up and five members of the original board from one development corporation are appointed to it, but only two of the original board for the other new town. Surely the 13,700 residents of Newton Aycliffe have a right to representation on the new board?

Sir K. Joseph: I would prefer not to go into details of personalities while consultations are going on.

Expenditure

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will ensure that all expenditure of local


authorities in the North-East undertaken to diminish unemployment is regarded as normal expenditure for the purposes of Section 6 of the Local Government Act of 1958.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): My right hon. Friend will be prepared to regard as eligible for rate-deficiency grant additional expenditure incurred by local authorities to reduce an exceptionally high level of unemployment.

Mr. Boyden: Can the hon. Gentleman go a little further and give technical assistance on such things as industrial sites if a local authority has not sufficient staff itself?

Mr. Corfield: That is another question. If the hon. Gentleman will put it down, I will apply my mind to it.

Mr. Jeger: Will the hon. Gentleman extend this policy to parts of northern England which are not technically in the North-East, for example, south Yorkshire, where there is a high level of unemployment, though not as high as in the North-East?

Mr. Corfield: The limiting factor is whether or not there are exceptional circumstances which my right hon. Friend can take into account. The area as such is not really crucial.

Rate Deficiency Grants

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if, following the recommendation of the recent Working Party on Rate Deficiency Grants, he has reduced the number of grant calculations for a year from three to two.

Mr. Corfield: No, Sir. The report of the working party was intended only as a basis for further consideration. The recommendations are now being considered by the local authority associations in the light of the views of their members. My right hon. Friend will consult them and the London County Council as soon as they are ready, and in due course he will lay a report before Parliament.

Mr. Boyden: Is the hon. Gentleman in favour of this move? Surely one of

the ideas of the general grant was to simplify procedure. Here is a practical way of doing so and saving money.

Mr. Corfield: I do not think I can anticipate my right hon. Friend's decision until he has had the consultations to which I referred. The Report has been published now in order to give local authorities time to make representations to their associations. We will continue consultations with the latter bodies as soon as those representations are in.

West Street, Brighton

Sir W. Teeling: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he is yet in a position to make a statement concerning the development of the West Street site in Brighton.

Sir K. Joseph: My decision on the development plan proposals affecting this site was announced on 28th January.

Sir W. Teeling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I did not withdraw this question because I wanted to find out what the local council and my constituents felt about it? Is he further aware that the net result is that they are all very pleased and happy?

Clean Air Act (Fuel Oils)

Mr. Fitch: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will amend the Clean Air Act to restrict the use of fuel oils to those of lighter viscosity.

Mr. Corfield: No, Sir. The supply of lighter viscosity fuel oil falls far short of the total oil requirement of industry.

Mr. Fitch: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the heavier fuel oils emit far more sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere than lighter ones? In the interests of cleaner air, will he reconsider that decision?

Mr. Corfield: I appreciate the truth of what the hon. Gentleman says, but about four-fifths of the fuel oil burnt in industry is of high viscosity. If that were banned there would be not nearly enough low viscosity oil to meet requirements.

Mr. Fletcher: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the London smog in December, which had such fatal consequences, was due to the emission of sulphur dioxide? Is he doing nothing to prevent a recurrence of this condition in the London area?

Mr. Corfield: As I think I have already told the hon. Gentleman, research is progressing. So far there is no real evidence that sulphur, without the combination of smoke, is dangerous to health. We are pressing on with our clean air procedure to limit the smoke.

Urban Areas (Recreation Facilities)

Mr. W. T. Rodgers: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will draw the attention of local authorities to the need to improve play facilities, especially in urban areas, for young children; and if he will make available grants for this purpose.

Mr. Corfield: Authorities generally are well aware of any local needs of this kind. Where local authorities qualify for rate deficiency grant, revenue expenditure on any schemes they undertake will attract this grant, but my right hon. Friend does not think that a specified grant for this purpose is needed.

Mr. Rodgers: While I understand that it may not be possible to make grants, I am particularly concerned with play facilities for the under-fives, and I do not take the view that local authorities are sufficiently aware of the need. Will the hon. Gentleman therefore draw their attention, in particular, to the work which has been done by the Save the Children Fund in this respect and urge them to make sites for these facilities available, especially where they are building high flats?

Mr. Corfield: We really do have remarkably few complaints of this nature and have no evidence that local authorities, with their local knowledge, are not well able to assess need. But I will think about the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

Mining Subsidence

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether, with

a view to reducing damage caused by mining subsidence, he will bring forward amending legislation to ensure that where planning consent is being given to private developers to build on land liable to subsidence, the developers are required to lay down strenthened foundations for the buildings.

Mr. Corfield: No, Sir. Amending legislation is not necessary. All local authorities in coal mining areas were advised in Circular No. 44/61 that the powers conferred by the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, enable them in appropriate cases to require structural precautions to be taken when permission is given for surface development.

Mr. Swingler: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that it appears that this has not been universally carried out? Would he make inquiries? Is he not aware that there are cases of houses and villas being built without strengthened foundations on land liable to mining subsidence, only causing future trouble and expense to the National Coal Board? Will he ensure that this requirement is universally applied to private development?

Mr. Corfield: This is a matter for local planning authorities, but if the hon. Member will send me details of any case of which he knows, I will certainly look into it with the local planning authority concerned.

Mrs. Slater: Will the hon. Gentleman also consult some of the people in the National Coal Board who are fully aware of this difficulty? Is he aware that in the great hurry to build private houses local authorities often do not insist that the foundations of houses in areas where mining subsidence has actually taken place should be reinforced? In the interests of both the Coal Board and the people who spend their money on these houses, is it not advisable for the Government to see that precautions are taken right at the beginning?

Mr. Corfield: I can assure the hon. Lady that the local planning authority is required to consult the National Coal Board in coal working areas which have been notified to the authority by the Board, and that when it does so the Coal Board is always willing to advise on the stability or likely stability of the area.

Sunderland

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what reply he has sent to the communication of the council of the county borough of Sunderland urging that grants be made towards the interest and sinking fund charges on loans raised to finance works costing up to £15,000 to alleviate unemployment.

Mr. Corfield: No reply has yet been sent. Legislation would be required and the council's suggestion will be considered together with others addressed to my noble Friend, the Lord President of the Council, and other Ministers. I may add that rate deficiency grant will be payable to the council in respect of any expenditure of this sort. Their estimated rate of grant for 1963–64 represents nearly 24 per cent. of their expenditure.

Mr. Willey: I am obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary for saying that the matter is under consideration. Will he expedite that consideration, as I am sure he will appreciate that it is very important to encourage this work immediately in view of current unemployment?

Mr. Corfield: I appreciate the urgency of the problem, but I think the hon. Member will agree that these matters are best not considered in isolation and should be considered in conjunction with other suggestions which have been put forward.

Mr. MacColl: Does the Parliamentary Secretary agree that, if this requires legislation, to offer money at lower rates of interest would not? In view of the urgency of this problem, is it not desirable not to dither about it but to take some quick action to help these areas?

Mr. Corfield: I have taken the hon. Gentleman's point, of course. According to my calculations, about 20 to 30 schemes of this sort could be started by this authority on the product of approximately ld. rate in this year.

New Buildings (Protection Against Frost)

Mrs. Butler: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what discussions he is having with local authority

associations about the revision of building byelaws to ensure that all new buildings are adequately protected against frost damage.

Mr. Corfield: A draft of the building regulations which, under the Public Health Act, 1961, will replace building byelaws in England and Wales has been circulated to interested bodies, including the local authority associations. The draft includes a requirement that soil and waste pipes shall be placed internally in all new buildings in order to prevent the risk of frost damage. A number of comments on this point have been received from interested bodies, and these are now being considered by the Building Regulations Advisory Committee.

Mrs. Butler: Does the hon. Member appreciate just how much sheer misery has been caused in recent weeks not only by the vulnerability of water pipes to frost damage, but by inadequate heating systems and lack of double windows? Are those items covered in the draft of the new byelaws? If they are not, would he consider something on those lines? In view of the £15 million worth of claims which have been made to insurance companies for damage to dwellings, should we not do everything we can to prevent such waste and hardship in future cold spells?

Mr. Corfield: Clearly, recent experience is very much in our minds, but double windows are a little beyond the Question. However, I will keep the matter in mind.

Mr. M. Stewart: Is the document to which the hon. Gentleman has referred and which has been circulated to local authorities available to hon. Members, or will it be made available?

Mr. Corfield: I do not think that it has been made available, but we can ensure that it will be.

Smoke Control Orders

Mr. Wade: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether in his consultations with the Minister of Power before confirming further smoke control orders, he ascertains whether smokeless fuel supplies are not only available but also suitable for the particular local conditions.

Mr. Corfield: My right hon. Friend consults his right hon. Friend the Minister of Power on the basis of the local authority's estimate of fuel requirements in the prospective smoke control area.

Mr. Wade: Does the Minister agree that if the clean air policy is to succeed it is important that the hardship and distress caused by the change-over should be minimised as far as possible? Is he aware that many protests have been made in my constituency, particularly by elderly people, about the timing of the order and the cost aid suitability of the fuel available? Is he satisfied that there is adequate consultation between his Ministry, the Ministry of Health and Ministry of Power before an order is confirmed?

Mr. Corfield: Yes, Sir. I assure the hon. Gentleman that no smoke control order is confirmed unless my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power advises that adequate supplies of the necessary fuels are available.

Mr. Hocking: Will the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that there will not be an extension of smokeless zones until there has been a vast increase in the amount of premium smokeless fuels available?

Mr. Corfield: I do not think that I can give that undertaking. The under-taking I can give is that every smoke control order will be considered in the light of the availability of fuels in the particular area.

Compulsory Purchase Order, West Bromwich

Mr. Dugdale: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs why he has refused to confirm the West Bromwich Corporation, John Street, Carter Green No. 1, Compulsory Purchase Order.

Mr. Corfield: The council's plans for redevelopment of the land in the order involved a substantial departure from the approved development plan. My right hon. Friend decided not to confirm the order because he agreed with the inspector that confirmation might appear to prejudice the decision on any amendment to the development plan and because he

considered that clearance of the unfit houses could be secured without compulsory purchase of the land.

Mr. Dugdale: Is the Minister aware that this land will have to be developed in any case, and that when it is, as a result of his decision, it will cost the ratepayers of West Bromwich considerably more than it would have otherwise?

Mr. Corfield: I think that this is a matter which will be under consideration when the necessary order comes before my right hon. Friend.

South Downs (Footpaths and Bridleways)

Sir C. Taylor: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he has yet considered the proposals of the National Parks Commission for the planning of a long distance route suitable both for walkers and horse riders, leading from the western outskirts of Eastbourne along the South Downs to the Sussex-Hampshire border near South Harting, with the possible extension at a later date as far as Winchester; and whether it will be possible to use this in the summer of this year.

Mr. Corfield: My right hon. Friend is considering the proposals. For much of its length the route is over existing footpaths, which can be walked already. Public rights for some 9 miles of bridle-ways need to be created. This is not likely to be done by this summer.

Sir C. Taylor: Can my hon. Friend say for how long this consideration will go on?

Mr. Corfield: It is only three weeks since we had the full details on which to consider the case. I do not expect that the consideration will take very long, but the procedure for creating the necessary bridleways and footpaths is a somewhat lengthy process, and that is why I do not expect that it will be ready by the summer.

Sir W. Teeling: Does my hon. Friend realise that this applies very much to pony clubs? When he considers the distance from Eastbourne to Winchester, will he bear in mind that there are many councils which do not enforce the rules, which are not compulsory, to make sure


that pony clubs are properly supervised? Will he therefore make certain that, before anything is done about this, everything is done to ensure that the ponies are properly fed and looked after over this long distance?

Mr. Corfield: I do not think that the feeding of ponies comes under the National Parks Commission in this context.

Local Government Commission

Mr. Vane: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what particular areas are now under review by the Local Government Commission for England.

Mr. Corfield: The Local Government Commission for England currently has under review four broad areas. As their descriptions are lengthy, I will circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Vane: While appreciating that local authority boundaries cannot be fixed for all time, will my hon. Friend set some limits to the activities of this Commission, bearing in mind the fact that the main result of its nine Reports issued so far has been widespread dismay and high expense incurred by these local authorities most closely implicated?

Mr. Corfield: My hon. Friend will be aware that the terms of reference of the Commission were laid down in the 1958 Act and that there are no means by which we can interfere with them at this stage, even if we thought it was desirable to do so.

Following are the descriptions:

The Tyneside Special Review Area and the associated North-Eastern General Review Area.
The West Yorkshire Special Review Area and the associated York and North Midlands General Review Area.
The Special Review Areas of Merseyside and South-East Lancashire and the associated North-Western General Review Area.
The Lincolnshire and East Anglia General Review Area.

Caravan Sites

Mr. Barnett: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will urge on local authorities the importance of pro-

viding an adequate supply of residential caravan sites in their areas.

Mr. Corfield: Generally speaking I think that in the main the provision of residential caravan sites can be left to private developers. The important thing in my right hon. Friend's view—and this has already been made clear to the local authorities—is that permission for the establishment of such sites should not be refused unnecessarily.

Mr. Barnett: Is the Minister not aware that there has been a considerable increase in caravan dwelling and that in many parts of the country there are not sufficient sites available for people to dwell in caravans? Will he reconsider his opinion in this respect?

Mr. Corfield: I think that where there is a demand there are almost certain to be planning applications, which, if they are turned down, come to my right hon. Friend and these matters of need are considered.

Sir W. Wakefield: Has the Minister a list of those local authorities which have made it quite clear that under no circumstances will they give permission within their areas for any residential caravans?

Mr. Corfield: No, Sir.

Mr. M. Stewart: Would the Minister agree that it ought to be part of the duty of local authorities to make sure that there are adequate sites in their areas for the need, and that if private developers are not meeting that need they should meet it themselves?

Mr. Corfield: As the hon. Gentleman knows, local authorities have the power to do that, and I think he would agree that this is essentially a matter for local people to decide on local needs.

Mr. Barnett: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will consider amending the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act, 1960, in such a way that the issue of licences as specified under Section 3 of the Act shall depend on the licensee undertaking to give a reasonable security of tenure to his tenants.

Mr. Corfield: My right hon. Friend does not think it would be practicable to deal with this matter by legislation.

Mr. Barnett: Is the Minister aware that there have been a number of cases of people who have been evicted from what is their only home, from a caravan site, and that many of these people are young married families and old-age pensioners who have suffered considerable hardship as a result, and that there is, therefore, a strong case for some kind of security of tenure being written into the Act because of this hardship?

Mr. Corfield: I appreciate the problem raised by the hon. Gentleman, but there are very considerable difficulties where we have site operators responsible for carrying out the conditions of licence under pain of considerable penalties. I suggest that the corollary is that site operators must have rather more control over tenants than would be proper in housing estates. This can be a dilemma—I realise that there are a minority of site operators who behave badly in this respect.

Government Departments (Planning)

Mr. Loveys: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he is aware that the existing arrangements for exemption from the need to apply for planning permission by Government Departments are in some cases working unsatisfactorily; and what steps he proposes to take to improve the position.

Mr. Corfield: No, Sir. If my hon. Friend has a particular case in mind I shall be glad to look into it.

Mr. Loveys: Is my hon. Friend aware that although the "Circular 100 procedure" is working well on the whole, there are occasions—and I would like to take up his offer of bringing a few to his attention—where Government Departments appear to be taking advantage of the fact that they are under no obligation to notify local planning authorities of detailed plans of any of their proposed buildings? Will my hon. Friend consider issuing instructions to ensure that detailed plans are in future submitted to local authorities by Government Departments who wish to build in their areas?

Mr. Corfield: My hon. Friend is probably aware that where there is a dispute between a Government Department and a local planning authority my

right hon. Friend is often asked to arbitrate. I have no evidence that the details are not supplied, but I shall make inquiries.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Building Societies (Discussions)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will make a statement on his discussions with the Building Societies' Association about loan policy for houses.

Sir K. Joseph: I am not yet ready to make a statement.

Mr. Allaun: Are not cheap loans the key to the problem? Will the Minister consider subsidising loans at least for the lower-priced range of houses? For instance, could he not introduce loans at 3 per cent., because 6 per cent. is far too high for most people who want to buy houses?

Sir K. Joseph: I agree that interest rates are a significant factor. There are, however, other very significant factors, such as the size of the deposit and the length of loan. But I am glad to see that a number of building societies are looking at these factors.

Mr. Lipton: Will the Minister also consider with the building society representatives the possibility of the building societies doing a little more to encourage the sale of houses to rent?

Sir K. Joseph: Yes, I think that is a very important point.

Controlled Houses

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he is aware of the practice of property companies in buying up old controlled houses with a view to their becoming decontrolled by the removal or death of the tenant that they are offering tenants money to move out and in some cases are unlawfully threatening tenants with eviction; and if, in order to prevent such abuses, he will now amend the Rent Act.

Sir K. Joseph: A controlled tenant is as fully protected today as he was before the passing of the Rent Act, 1957. In particular, he cannot be evicted without


a court order. Financial inducements to move out are not illegal, but a tenant should consider any offer very carefully before accepting it.

Mr. Allaun: If I send it to him, will the Minister read the eviction order which I have in my hand which was sent to an old-age pensioner aged 73 in my constituency who had lived in the house and paid his rent regularly since 1913? Is the Minister aware that when I took up the matter with the firm, which is trebling the rents as soon as it gets tenants out, the firm hastily replied that it had made a mistake? Cannot the Minister do something to stop this kind of exploitation, which is taking place on a wide scale?

Sir K. Joseph: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will send me the papers.

Mr. MacColl: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the one great difference between the situation now and the situation before 1957 is that when the tenant moved out in those days into another dwelling it was still controlled, whereas now he moves into a place which is decontrolled and has no security of tenure?

Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. The tenant generally could not move into any other decontrolled dwelling in those days because the landlord, having got the previous occupant out, sold it.

West Ham

Mr. A. Lewis: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he is aware that since 1951 the purchasing power of the £ sterling has depreciated by 27 per cent., the index of retail prices has increased by 47 per cent., expenditure on private house building has increased by 816 per cent., and expenditure on local authority housing until 1961 had decreased by 11 per cent. and as this is making it difficult for councils such as West Ham to carry out their slum clearances, war damage reconstruction and normal house building development, what action he proposes to take to assist the county borough of West Ham in developing its housing programme.

Sir K. Joseph: As to the first part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to him on 29th January. As to the second part, I do not think West Ham lack adequate resources to carry on with their slum clearance and housing programmes. They can apply for the special supplemental housing subsidy which was introduced in the Housing Act, 1961, and which is designed to help local authorities whose housing operations are putting an unduly high burden on the rates.

Mr. Lewis: I appreciate that West Ham is a progressive council which has done a wonderful job notwithstanding the obstacles placed in its way by the Government. However, is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that if there were low rates of interest and if this progressive council were given further financial aid and assistance it could build even more houses for those who are in urgent need? As he has claimed that it is his policy and desire that there should be more houses for those in urgent need, will he not consider that to see whether something further can be done?

Sir K. Joseph: West Ham can try to make use of the extra rate subsidy available to those who need it. I await its application.

Western Ground Rents Limited

Mr. Callaghan: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs in what circumstances a letter of 6th July, 1961, addressed by the honourable Member for Cardiff, South-East, to Western Ground Rents Ltd., has been received by him in his official capacity; and for what purpose he has received it.

Sir K. Joseph: A copy of the letter was sent to the Lord Chancellor on 11th July, 1961, by a director of Western Ground Rents Ltd., who thought that the information furnished in reply would be of interest to Ministers. A further copy was sent to me with the same object on 3rd December, 1962.

Mr. Callaghan: May I take it that the Minister did not ask for this correspondence?

Sir K. Joseph: indicated assent.

Mr. Callaghan: While I am glad to have that assurance, is it not very highhanded of Western Ground Rents to send correspondence which I have with it to Ministers and to the Lord Chancellor without seeking my permission or getting my consent? What confidence can we have in a company which behaves in this high-handed way?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that the Minister can be asked to express a view about the conduct of a company, but the rest of it is all right.

Sir K. Joseph: I was only going to confirm that I did not in any way ask for this correspondence.

Mr. Callaghan: Did the Minister have any more satisfactory replies to his questions than I had? Does he think that the policy of Western Ground Rents in relation to the sale of its freeholds is satisfactory?

Sir K. Joseph: That is quite another question.

Mr. G. Thomas: Remembering that correspondence which I had with this firm was given to an hon. Member opposite and read out in the House in our last debate on this subject, can the Minister tell me whether he has had any of my recent letters to Western Ground Rents, and, if he has those letters, whether he does not agree that the harsh tone which I adopted in them was well deserved?

Sir K. Joseph: I have not been privileged with the sight of that correspondence, but I am glad to say that the two letters which I have seen and to which the Question refers were both conducted in very courteous and clear tones.

Rent Tribunals (Applicants)

Mr. Lipton: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he is aware that in certain cases families have been denied flats by landlords because they have successfully applied to rent tribunals for a reduction in the rent of their present accommodation and what action he is taking to ensure that successful applicants to rent tribunals are not subsequently penalised.

Sir K. Joseph: One such case was reported recently in the Press. I have

heard of no others. Landlords are, of course, entitled to inquire into the suitability of an applicant for a tenancy, but I would deplore discrimination against him simply because he has exercised a right given by Parliament. At the same time, it must be recognised that it is impossible to compel owners by law to let to tenants they do not want.

Mr. Lipton: Has the right hon. Gentleman investigated what looks like a nasty bit of victimisation by the Midland Bank Executor & Trustee Company Ltd., which refused a tenancy to a man who had made a successful application for a reduction in rent before the Croydon District Rent Tribunal? May not this be one of a large number of cases where tenants are being victimised by landlords for having the presumption to exercise their legitimate rights under existing legislation?

Sir K. Joseph: I think that it is wrong of the hon. Gentleman, on the evidence of one case, to say anything that might frighten tenants from using the rights that Parliament has given them. I have heard of this one case and I have deplored the action, but I have no evidence that this is widespread.

Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: While realising that it is difficult for my right hon. Friend to do much about these cases and the matter in general, would he agree that in many cases these landlords of slum furnished accommodation form a very close ring and that they are invariably able to get rid of tenants, at any rate within six months of an appeal to a rent tribunal, and then ensure that they get in nowhere else?

Sir K. Joseph: I would be grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend if he could let me have any evidence to support that. There are powers in the hands of local authorities which can be used in appropriate cases—I stress in appropriate cases—and I would be grateful for any evidence that he has.

Smoke Control Orders

Mr. J. Hynd: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he is aware that the present maximum grants permitted for conversion to smokeless grates are still insufficient to enable conversion to the more expensive closed


stoves capable of burning the cheaper fuels; and, in view of the shortage of premium fuels suitable for open grates, if he will authorise an increase in the grants for closed stoves suitable for consuming the more plentiful cheaper fuels.

Mr. Corfield: Where stoves are installed, grant under the Clean Air Act is normally based on the notional cost of open fires designed for burning smokeless fuel. In areas where supplies of smokeless fuels suitable for open fires are likely to be inadequate, my right hon. Friend is prepared to consider relating the grant to the actual cost of stoves, but he must take into account the availability of suitable gas cokes as well as the availability of premium fuels.

Mr. Hynd: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that reply and the information which I am sure will be welcomed in many smokeless zones, will he ensure that some examination is made of the position in Sheffield, particularly, where there is a serious shortage of these fuels and where there has been difficulty in getting adequate grants to enable closed fires to be installed.

Mr. Corfield: I understand that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power is considering the position in a number of areas other than the North-East where this applies at the moment.

Improvement Grants, Stoke-on-Trent

Mrs. Slater: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs how many houses in Stoke-on-Trent, and nationally, were improved with the aid of standard and discretionary grants up to 30th September, 1962.

Mr. Corfield: Since mid-1959, 38 dwellings have been improved in Stoke-on-Trent with standard grants and, since 1949, 2,476 with discretionary grants. In England and Wales the comparable figures are 247,935 and 333,002, respectively.

Mrs. Slater: In view of those figures, and comparing them with the number of houses in areas like Stoke-on-Trent which could be made into good houses if they had modern amenities, will not the Government now consider doing more to persuade people—and landlords in particular—to improve their houses

by adding modern amenities? Will the hon. Member ask the Minister whether local authorities can be given grants in order to make these improvements, and for a certain number of years to guarantee the rents to the landlord, providing that the control of the houses was in the power of the local authorities?

Mr. Corfield: My right hon. Friend is very anxious that more use should be made of these grants, and he will certainly consider any suggestions that are made, including those of the hon. Lady. She will be aware that we have been trying to give more publicity to these grants. She probably knows that a demonstration was held in her own area and that this led to a considerable increase in the use of these provisions in that area. That is to be welcomed.

Mrs. Slater: Yes, but is the hon. Member aware that after that demonstration in Stoke-on-Trent, to which a great deal of publicity was directed, only one landlord in the area has taken advantage of the grant? All the others are owner-occupiers. It is the landlords to whom we should direct our publicity.

Factory-built Housing Units

Miss Vickers: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will investigate the possibility of producing factory-built housing units that can be placed in terraces and readily extended so as to provide accommodation considerably cheaper than the present estimates of about £3,000 for a one-bedroom flat.

Sir K. Joseph: My Department's Research and Development Group is already working on a system of factory-built housing suitable for all forms of lay-out, including terraces. The first prototype terrace of four houses was completed in Sheffield a month ago. Also, a number of building firms have taken licences on continental systems, or are developing their own systems of flat or house-building using factory made components.

Miss Vickers: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will those components be useful in in-filling blitzed sites, which present a special problem in many cities?

Sir K. Joseph: We have not yet got a fully reliable system for use in small numbers and for small buildings. I hope that the type which is being developed by my Ministry can fill this gap, but it is only at the prototype stage. We would like other systems to serve this purpose.

Property, Fulham

Mr. M. Stewart: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what consideration he has given to the communication he has received from the hon. Member for Fulham concerning the policy pursued by the ground landlord of property in Fulham Perk Gardens, S.W.6.

Sir K. Joseph: I have today replied to the hon. Member.

Mr. Stewart: Will the right hon. Gentleman take note of the fact that in this case the ground landlord was offering to sell the freehold to the leaseholder only on condition that the leaseholder had not let any of the premises? Since that conflicts with the Government's policy of trying to bring more private rented property on to the market, does not the Minister agree that this is an additional argument for legislation to enable leaseholders to obtain freeholds without conditions of this kind?

Sir K. Joseph: No. This question of enfranchisement is a very large one. In this case the lessee does not have to buy the freehold. He has the protection of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954, if his lease is near its end.

Oral Answers to Questions — WELSH AFFAIRS

Government Information

Mr. Morris: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs, in view of the inadequacy of the reports on Government action in Wales in past years, what steps he is taking to provide more comprehensive information.

Sir K. Joseph: The Annual Report on Developments and Government Action in Wales has been considerably expanded in recent years, but I shall be glad to consider any suggestions for developing it further.

Mr. Morris: Is the Minister aware that the Welsh Report contains only nine pages dealing with agriculture, for example, while the Scottish Report has 96 pages dealing solely with that subject, and that in the Welsh Report there is no reference to the profitability of the industry compared with other areas, nor any breakdown of the Price Review? Will he consider whether more information can be given in the Report, as most of it otherwise has to be obtained by Question and Answer?

Sir K. Joseph: I will gladly consider the omissions which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. It is true that Scotland has a substantial report entirely devoted to agriculture, but it does not have a report on general development covering the whole field, as Wales does, and of which the section on agriculture is only one chapter.

Mr. G. Thomas: While I do not wish to compare Welsh statistics with those of other parts of the United Kingdom, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the section dealing with education ought to be extended and deepened? Will he also consider that?

Sir K. Joseph: I would be grateful if the hon. Member would give me some of the points on which he thinks the Report is weak—perhaps in correspondence. I will certainly look at them.

Welsh County Boundaries Commission

Mr. L1. Williams: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs when the final recommendations of the Welsh County Boundaries Commission will be published.

Sir K. Joseph: As soon as possible, but I understand from the Stationery Office that this is unlikely to be before early March.

Mr. Williams: Will the Minister publish this recomendation in the Welsh language in addition to the English language?

Sir K. Joseph: No, that is not planned at the moment.

Mr. C. Hughes: Can the Minister say how soon after the publication of the Report, early in March, he will be able to make a pronouncement upon it?

Sir K. Joseph: No. Several processes still have to be gone through, and there has to be a public inquiry if sufficient objections are made. Only after that do I have to make recommendations to Parliament.

Local Government Commission for Wales

Mr. C. Hughes: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs which Government Departments have expressed views to the Local Government Commission for Wales relating to the matters before the Commission.

Sir K. Joseph: Information about the material provided by Government Departments for the Commission is contained in their Report which will be published shortly.

Mr. Hughes: Will not the Minister give the details of the Departments which have given evidence? Can he say whether witnesses from these Departments will be available to give evidence at the public inquiry which may follow the publication of the Report?

Sir K. Joseph: The last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is a separate question. Perhaps he would put it on the Order Paper. Regarding the first part, the Government Departments did give information in response to specific requests from the Commission, as I told the hon. Gentleman on 16th July.

Mr. C. Hughes: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs for what purpose the members of the Local Government Commission for Wales have been reappointed following the submission to the Minister of their Report and Proposals relating to local government reorganisation in Wales.

Sir K. Joseph: In order that they should be in office when their report is published.

Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister say whether there is any more work for them to do and whether any remuneration will be paid to them after their reappointment?

Sir K. Joseph: There may be consultations to be carried out with them, but it is not in mind that they should give evidence at the inquiries—I am answering the hon. Member's first question. Their job is to give advice to the Government, not to support the advice they give when the inquiry stage is reached.

Mr. Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question about remuneration?

Sir K. Joseph: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that down on the Order Paper.

M. LEFEVRE (COMMUNICATIONS)

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement regarding his latest official communication with the Prime Minister of Belgium.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): Any communications I may have with M. Lefevre would be confidential.

Mr. Donnelly: In the light of recent events, what consideration has the right hon. Gentleman given to the possibility of raising the status of the Western European Union Standing Council which is meeting in London, and possibly transferring it to Brussels, where, in fact, it came into existence as a result of the Treaty of Brussels?

The Prime Minister: I will take note of that proposal.

MR. NEHRU (COMMUNICATION)

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement regarding his latest official communication with Mr. Nehru.

The Prime Minister: I am in close and frequent communication with Mr. Nehru about the many matters which are of concern to us both, but it is not normal practice to disclose the content of confidential consultations with other Commonwealth Prime Ministers.

Mr. Donnelly: Can the Prime Minister give any indication how far Her Majesty's Government have gone in their policy to facilitate talks on Kashmir and the differences between India and Pakistan?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Member probably knows, these talks are continuing, and we must hope for their success.

Miss Lee: May I congratulate the Prime Minister on the help he is giving to Prime Minister Nehru at a very difficult time? Further, will he leave to the discretion of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers the very delicate and complicated problem of India-Pakistan relations?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for what she has said.

RETIRED CIVIL SERVANTS (EMPLOYMENT)

Mr. Mason: asked the Prime Minister if he has now considered whether the 25 year-old rules governing the movement of civil servants from the Civil Service to industry, contained in Cmd. 5517, are still appropriate in present circumstances; what alterations he proposes; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: I have reviewed the rules set out in the White Paper Cmd. 5517 of 1937. I am satisfied that these rules have achieved the purposes for which they were drawn up and that in their operation account is taken of changing circumstances. I will, with permission, circulate a fuller statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Mason: The Prime Minister has not indicated to what extent he has made this inquiry. Is not he aware that the Ministry really responsible for the Questions on the Order Paper is the Ministry of Aviation? That Ministry has flouted the rule embodied in the White Paper to which the Prime Minister has referred, especially in regard to paragraph 5 (a) dealing with civil servants who have lent their services within two years of the restraint period and joined industries with which they were in contractual relations? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is the Ministry that deals with all the mammoth contracts involving mis-

siles, rockets, arms, aircraft, aero-engines, and so on? Surely a further statement is required. The Prime Minister should consider having an inquiry into the Ministry of Aviation at least.

The Prime Minister: The statement that I am circulating is inevitably a rather long one. If the hon. Member wishes to take up any specific point, perhaps he will put down a Question after the circulation of this statement.

Mr. G. Brown: It would be acceptable to most of us, and I hope it would be acceptable to my lion. Friend, if the Prime Minister is willing to discuss it with us after we have seen his fuller statement. But does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that although the basis agreed between himself and Mr. Gaitskell earlier seems to be true, when one looks at the wording of the Command Paper of 1937, inevitably the words there set down do not cover the existing situation, as there have been so many changes in Government relationships with the outside world since then? Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore keep an open mind in the matter until we have seen his fuller statement and then be willing to have discussions with us about it?

The Prime Minister: After the statement has been circulated I shall be very ready to answer any questions. In view of the feeling about long answers in the House, since the statement was rather long I thought it wiser to have it printed.

Mr. Brown: I do not know whether the Prime Minister listened to what I said, but he used different words. I did not ask if he was williing to answer any question. I know that he would be willing to do that. I asked whether he would be willing to have discussions with us about it after we had seen the statement.

The Prime Minister: That is another question. I would like to consider it. In answer to the original Question, I said that I would naturally answer any points which the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) might care to raise.

Following is the statement:
In accordance with the undertaking which I gave on 13th December. I have examined the


operation of the rules set out in the White Paper, Cmd. 5517 of 1937, governing the acceptance of business appointments by retired civil servants and officers of the Armed Forces.
In the past ten years, 126 civil servants, and 62 officers of the Armed Forces retiring after service in the Defence Departments, have been given permission to take up appointments under the procedure introduced by the White Paper—an average of somewhat less than 20 a year.
Hon. Members may be interested to have these figures. But the important consideration is that there should be no ground for suspicion that officers of the Crown Services may be influenced in the course of their official relations with business concerns by hopes or offers of future employment in any of those concerns: and I am satisfied, from the review I have carried out, that the operation of the rules has met this essential requirement.
There is one point I think it important to put on record. The terms of the 1937 White Paper were directed to avoidance of any ground for suspicion that serving officers might be led to bestow favours on firms in the hope of future benefits to come. But it is also important to guard against the risk that a particular firm may be thought to be gaining an unfair advantage over its competitors by employing an ex-public servant who during his service had access to technical information which those competitors could legitimately regard as their own trade secrets. This risk has increased since 1937, as a consequence of the speed of technical development in certain fields and the wider scope of Government contracts, In practice it has not been overlooked, and I am assured that consideration of this point is now to be regarded as a regular part of the procedure for dealing with all applications for permission to accept an offer of employment.
There is another side to all this. As I said on 13th December, there is often a positive advantage to the community if able people with appropriate experience move from the public service into industry. It would not be right to set up unreasonable obstacles in the way of this movement—provided always that the integrity of the public service is safeguarded. I have satisfied myself that the existing procedures are adequate to ensure this.

NON-FERROUS SCRAP METALS

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Prime Minister whether he will now give instructions to bring the control of all non-ferrous scrap metals under one Department, namely, the Board of Trade.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. There is already close consultation about export controls between the two Departments principally concerned.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it is a hang-over from the war period that we should have non-ferrous metals controlled both by the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Aviation? Would not it be more efficient to bring them under one Ministry, and would my right hon. Friend agree to look at this matter again if I write to him?

The Prime Minister: I The President of the Board of Trade deals with copper, lead, zinc and nickel, The Ministry of Aviation deals with aluminium, magnesium and titanium in view of the great importance of these metals to the aircraft industry I should be happy to consider the matter again if my hon. Friend would write to me.

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (QUESTIONS)

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Prime Minister if he will arrange for the Secretary of State for Scotland to be given further opportunities to answer Questions at Question Time, in view of the deteriorating economic situation in Scotland.

The Prime Minister: The order of Questions is constantly under review and is a matter which is arranged after consultation through the usual channels.

Mr. Dempsey: Is the Prime Minister aware that were he to examine the present order of Questions he would notice that the combined top-of-the-list appearances of English Ministers with duties similar to those of the Secretary of State for Scotland total 13 against one appearance by the Secretary of State for Scotland? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this means that hon. Members who do not represent Scottish constituencies may ask 26 Oral Questions, whereas hon. Members who do represent Scottish constituencies are allowed to ask only two? Does not that savour of discourtesy to Scotland? Will not the Prime Minister see to it in future that hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies may have more opportunities to get to their feet to speak for Scotland?

The Prime Minister: I have, of course, every sympathy with the hon. Gentleman. But the management of Questions


is not a matter for me personally. By discussion in the ordinary way we try to get what best suits the House as a whole. It is difficult to please everybody. But I think that the system we use is the best to protect the interests of the House as a whole.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Does the Prime Minister realise that the 71 hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies constitute one-ninth of the membership of this House and that therefore they should have at least one-ninth of the opportunities of putting Questions and receiving Answers? Whatever may be the office procedure governing the order of Questions, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that justice is done to Scotland?

The Prime Minister: I think that the mathematical point is important. No doubt it will sift its way through the usual channels in due course.

SIGNOR FANFANI (CONVERSATIONS)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the outcome of his visit to the Italian Prime Minister.

Q9. Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his recent official visit to Rome.

The Prime Minister: I would refer hon. Members to the joint communiqué issued after my talks with Signor Fanfani.

Mr. Rankin: Is the Minister aware that I read that joint statement with interest? May I ask whether he will give further thought to his suggestion of a link-up between Western European Union and N.A.T.O., for the reason that W.E.U. was formed to oppose German rearmament and N.A.T.O. was formed to promote it? How can the right hon. Gentleman reconcile the synthesis of these opposites, unless it means that he is now determined to proceed with the total rearmament of Western Germany, including nuclear rearmament?

The Prime Minister: I can reconcile the synthesis only by accepting neither the premise nor the conclusion.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can the Prime Minister tell us to what extent he advised the Italian Prime Minister to come in over an independent deterrent and half-a-dozen Polaris submarines, and whether in his reply the Italian Prime Minister said he could not be independent because Italy is buying oil from the Soviet Union?

The Prime Minister: I do not wish to add to the communiqué, but I think it was made clear that the Italian Government welcomed the proposals made at Nassau with regard to the N.A.T.O. position about the deterrent.

Mr. Wade: Is it the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take the initiative in proposing closer political unity in Europe, which, presumably, is not ruled out by the breakdown of negotiations for entry into the European Economic Community?

The Prime Minister: All these are large questions which were discussed. I understand that we are to have a two-day debate on this matter, the situation resulting from the breakdown of the Brussels negotiations, and I think that they would be more easily dealt with in that debate.

Mr. Edelman: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is possible to be in favour of European unity without necessarily being in favour of the Treaty of Rome? In the circumstances, is not there a great area of co-operation open to those who are in favour of the Treaty of Rome and to those who are opposed to it in connection with the unification of Europe?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I always understood that the hon. Gentleman was in favour of both!

PRESIDENT DE GAULLE (DISCUSSIONS)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Prime Minister to what extent during his last conversations with President de Gaulle he discussed a possible new approach to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

The Prime Minister: As I have already said, these conversations were


confidential and I am not prepared to add to what has already been said about them.

Mr. Hughes: Is not the Prime Minister aware that in every capital of the world discussions are taking place about the possibility of General de Gaulle starting a new approach to the Soviet Union? In view of the fact that he himself started an approach, how can the Prime Minister object to this attitude if General de Gaulle adopts it? Will the right hon. Gentleman keep an open mind regarding any initiative from any quarter likely to bring about better relations with the U.S.S.R., which would be welcomed throughout the world?

The Prime Minister: That is another question. We have received no information on the subject from the French Government. We are to debate this matter at length, and I will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Sir C. Osborne: In view of the fact that the action of General de Gaulle is likely to make it more difficult for us to sell our goods in Europe, ought not we to take every possible step to increase East-West trade as a means of compensation?

The Prime Minister: We have been doing that to a great extent over a long period. I think that what the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) had in mind was a political rather than an economic initiative.

COMMON MARKET

Sir D. Walker-Smith: asked the Prime Minister whether, in the circumstances of the breakdown of the Common Market negotiations, he will now put forward proposals for a Commonwealth initiative on the lines communicated to him by the right hon. and learned Member for East Hertfordshire in June, 1962; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: I read with interest the recommendations which my right hon. and learned Friend was good enough to send me. Some of them are in line with what we and other Commonwealth Governments have been and intend

to go on doing. Others perhaps are less likely to find general support among Commonwealth Governments.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that Answer, or at least for the greater part of it. Does he recall that when answering on his behalf on 20th December the Chief Secretary said that the time was not really opportune for such an initiative because the Government were then concentrating on the Common Market negotiations? In the new circumstances, will the right hon. Gentleman take the initiative with the Commonwealth in the hope of convincing the Commonwealth countries that constructive action on these lines is indeed desirable from all our points of view?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. and learned Friend was good enough to send me a pamphlet which covered a very wide field. I do not think that I ought to be asked to deal with that in Question and Answer. We are to have a debate over two days, and I hope to make some reference to this very important aspect of the problem.

Mr. K. Lewis: I wonder whether the Prime Minister has noted—as I am sure that he has—that the continued disunity in Europe has been caused by a large Power and that most of our friends in Europe are in fact the small Powers, one of which is very small indeed? Is not there a lesson to be learned here, that whatever fragmentation may take place in Europe, we should at any rate keep England intact—and keep Rutland as a county?

The Prime Minister: I must say, after quite a long experience in this House, that I offer my congratulations to the hon. Gentleman. He has done very well.

NATIONAL ASSISTANCE (INCREASED RATES)

The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Niall Macpherson): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about National Assistance.
On 23rd January I informed the House that I was expecting to receive from the National Assistance Board


proposals under Section 6 of the National Assistance Act, 1948, for further increases in the rates of National Assistance. I have now considered the Board's proposals and have accepted them. I have accordingly made draft Regulations and these have been laid today. They are now available in the Vote Office together with copies of an Explanatory Memorandum by the Board. The draft Regulations require the approval of both Houses of Parliament by an affirmative Resolution.
Subject to that approval, the Regulations will provide for increases of 6s. a week in the rate for a single householder and of 9s. a week for a married couple, bringing the householder rates to 63s. 6d. and 104s. 6d. respectively. An allowance for rent is, of course, added to these amounts. There are appropriate increases in the other rates. As the House will see when hon. Members have had an opportunity to study the draft Regulations, on this occasion as on the last the Board feels that proportionately rather more should be given to the single householder than to other people.
Subject to the approval of Parliament, it is proposed that the new rates will come in to effect from 27th May, at the same time as the increases in National Insurance pensions. The House will appreciate that there has been no significant change in prices since the last increase was made in September and that the new rates, therefore, represent a real improvement in standard.
As the House knows, the National Insurance Bill now before us contains a temporary provision to ensure that a person whose unemployment or sickness benefit is supplemented by National Assistance will not get less advantage from the benefit increase in March than he would get if the proposals which I have just announced were in operation at the time.

Mr. Rankin: When is the General Election?

Mr. Houghton: While welcoming the announcement that the Minister has made, because these increases will bring much needed relief—overdue relief—to nearly 2 million of the poorest people in the country, may I ask whether he is aware that the increases he has

announced in National Assistance will be 4s. a week less in the case of a single person and 7s. 6d. less in the case of a married couple than the increase proposed in National Insurance benefits?
Is not this the very worst moment to tell the poorest people that something will be given to them with one hand and some of it will be taken away with the other? Is not this the occasion for the right hon. Gentleman to announce increases in National Assistance equivalent to the increases in National Insurance?
Does not this show that bigger increases should have been given last September? What considerations weigh with the National Assistance Board today that were not as relevant and just as strong last September? What has happened in the interval to give the right hon. Gentleman any possible excuse for withholding these further increases through the bitterly hard winter? Does he not agree that having regard to this, these increases should be backdated? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I know that that hon. and right hon. Members opposite do not like it, but they have got to take it.
Should not these increases now be back-dated in order to make some restitution to those who have been denied so long? Will he kindly confirm that the cost of these increases is less than the relief given to Surtax payers with effect from 1st January last?

Mr. Macpherson: The hon. Member made four criticisms. He said that a bigger increase should have been given last September, but the increase given last September was more than enough to compensate for the rise in prices since the previous increase. The increase that is to be given now is wholly an improvement in the standards of these people. It ties in with the increase in pensions on 27th May.
The hon. Member asked what the cost of these increases will be. The cost of the increases by themselves will be £34 million, but, taken in conjunction with the increases in National Insurance, there will be a saving to the Exchequer—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—as there always is. Whenever there is an increase in National Insurance which is more than the increase in the Assistance rates there


is always bound to be a saving to the Exchequer. What the House has to judge is what the cost of the whole operation is. The cost of the whole operation has already been given.

Mr. Wade: May I ask a somewhat shorter question than that asked by the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton)? From what date will the increases announced today take effect?

Mr. Macpherson: If the timetable for the National Insurance Bill now before the House is maintained, that Bill will come into effect for those on pensions and like benefits on 27th May and the National Assistance increases will come into effect for them at the same date. But, as the hon. Member will know, the unemployment and sickness benefit increases will come into effect on 7th March and the comparable increases in National Assistance will be timed to come into effect at the same time for those on these benefits. That is the effect of the Bill now before the House.

Dame Edith Pitt: Would my right hon. Friend agree that, although modest, these increases represent a real and welcome increase in the standard of living of those among us who are less well off? Would he not also agree that the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) conveniently forgot to mention that in addition to the scale rates for National Assistance beneficiaries the Board meets rent?

Mr. Macpherson: Yes, Sir. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. As I have already said, these increases are real and will be welcome to the recipients, even if they are not welcome to hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Steele: In view of the fact that wage levels generally in Scotland are much lower than south of the Border—and the Minister has himself indicated that he wants the recipients to have the benefit of much improved standards—has the Board stated how it will apply the wages stop, as much of the benefit will not accrue to the recipients because of the wages stop in many instances?

Mr. Macpherson: The wages stop will continue and it will, of course, as at present, ensure that in these cases the

benefits are kept in line with the wages which the beneficiary was earning before. That will continue, and is bound to.

Sir C. Osborne: Is it fair to assume that these welcome, if modest, increases to the poorest people will remain with them and not be filched from them by increased prices?

Mr. Macpherson: I prefer to confine myself to the purpose of this operation today.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the National Assistance Board giving special consideration to the increased burden imposed upon the poorest section of the community who have to apply for National Assistance because—apart from any increase in prices—of the excessive and exceptional use of fuel and power attributable to the extremely cold weather, which may continue for some time? Have these factors been taken into account by the Board?

Mr. Macpherson: The Board has to give consideration to needs as they arise. It has to take into account that needs will normally be different at different times of the year.

Mr. Ellis Smith: The Minister has now announced two increases in the relatively low rates paid to those who have to apply for National Assistance. Is not the logic of this that similar increases should be made in all the disregards, which mean so much to the people who have to apply for National Assistance? Will the Minister also consider, especially in view of the terrible suffering arising from this cold winter, the effect of the Health Service prescription charges? Will he consult the National Assistance Board with a view to the introduction of improvements in all the disregards, including the prescription charges?

Mr. Macpherson: Prescription charges are not a matter for me. To increase the disregards would need legislation and could not be brought in with these Regulations.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker: No. I understand that these increases require an affirmative Resolution. We ought to go on.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS

Steel Industry

Mr. Morris: I beg to give notice that on Monday, 18th February, I shall call attention to the state of the steel industry, and move a Resolution.

Members of Parliament (Facilities)

Mr. Lagden: I beg to give notice that on Monday, 18th February, I shall call attention to the lack of facilities available to the Members of the House of Commons, and move a Resolution.

University and Higher Education

Dr. Bray: I beg to give notice that on Monday, 18th February, I shall call attention to the need for expanding university and higher education, and move a Resolution.

TRAVEL AGENCIES (REGISTRATION)

3.42 p.m.

Mr. Edward Milne: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the registration of travel agencies; and for purposes connected therewith.
The travel trade industry is one of our major industries, and a revenue in the region of £200 million to £240 million per annum from overseas visitors makes tourism an extremely important sector of our economy. It is 100 years ago this summer since Sir Thomas Cook organised his first Continental tour and I am certain that he would be staggered to realise the extent of the travel trade today and, would, in fact, raise his hands in horror at what happens. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. Let there be less noise, in the interest of the hon. Member who is addressing the House.

Mr. Milne: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, it is 100 years ago this summer since Sir Thomas Cook organised his first Continental tour and he would be staggered to realise the extent of the travel trade today. He would raise his hands in horror at what happens to many holidaymakers when they arrive on the Continent. Despite the admirable code of conduct laid down by the Association of British Travel Agents and the firms associated with the Travel Trade Association, holidaymakers, both in this country and from overseas, are undoubtedly at the mercy of unscrupulous agents whose get-rich-quick methods are not only a menace to the travelling public but are a threat to the best interests of the reliable firms in the trade.
I am sure that the House needs little convincing of the need for some form of legislation to deal with this problem. Last year, the chairman of the Association of British Travel Agents said at the association's annual convention that the offending firms in this industry could be counted on the fingers of one hand. From my own files, and, no doubt, the files of other hon. Members, let alone the numerous reports from all quarters and newspaper articles on the subject, this is simply not the case. It is true


to say that A.B.T.A., under present conditions, is unable to deal convincingly with the wrongdoers in its midst.
The President of the Board of Trade last year, greatly daring, stated at a luncheon given by one of the travel trade associations that licensing was not for us. I am sure that if the Board of Trade were to look at some of the recent happenings which have been and will be brought to his notice there would be a change of attitude.
The Association of National Tourist Office Representatives in Great Britain, at a meeting on 9th January of this year, passed a resolution unanimously adopted by its members which contained these words:
Having examined the situation created by a leading tour operator and travel agency who, we understand, are placing the company in voluntary liquidation, and the far-reaching consequences thereof on a great many bona fide creditors, travel agents both in Great Britain and abroad, transport companies, foreign hoteliers, whose rightful claims are in jeopardy.
The association urged that a council of ethics for the travel trade should be set up. The association further urged that A.B.T.A. should re-examine schemes whereby tour operators and travel agents in Britain would offer
unshakeable guarantees to the travelling public and to such parties with whom they contract".
I believe that that is a view with which hon. Members will not disagree. The whole future of the travel industry is in the melting pot. There is no need to stress in the House the importance of holidays to the British and to other peoples as well. Some of our happiest days have been spent on holidays. I am sure that it is the desire of the House to protect the enjoyment of others. Some of the examples which are used by unscrupulous traders underline the necessity for the type of legislation I advocate. Glossy brochures and advertisements

offering package all-in holidays at a little less than £45 when closely examined, and indeed experienced, by holidaymakers turn out to cost them £60 or over. This can have an extremely damaging effect on our own tourist trade as well.
I recently received a letter from an American tourist whose home is in California and who was booked in at a London hotel by a British travel firm. He described the hotel which this group of tourists were booked in at as a
hotel which looked like a cross between a relic from the Middle Ages and a Los Angeles skid row slum hotel.
Some of the Americans had had experience of London hotels and they said it was so depressing to try to explain to the others who did not realise that London had much better hotels to offer with clean, modern rooms at a comparable rate.
As tourists from overseas bring into this country about £200 million to £240 million per annum, we are dealing not only with the enjoyment of British holidaymakers but with an important part of our economy as well. It is the tradition of the House to protect the public against this type of treatment. I hope that the need for legislation is apparent from my short remarks and I trust that the House will agree to the Motion and allow the Bill to go forward to its Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Milne, Mr. Loughlin, Mr. R. Edwards, Mr. Owen, Mr. Edelman, Mr. Grey, Mr. Short, Mr. Darling, and Dr. Dickson Mabon.

TRAVEL AGENCIES (REGISTRATION)

Bill to provide for the registration of travel agencies; and for purposes connected therewith, presented accordingly and read the First Time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 5th April, and to be printed. [Bill 61.]

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL INSURANCE [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of this Session to increase contributions and benefits under the National Insurance Acts 1946 to 1961 and the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Acts 1946 to 1961 it is expedient to authorise—

(a) any increase attributable to the new Act in the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament—

(i) under section 2 (b) of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act 1946 or section 1 (3) of the National Insurance Act 1959 (Exchequer supplements) or section 12 (4) of the said Act of 1959 (statutory superannuation schemes), or,
(ii) under section 60 of the National insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act 1946 or section 38 of the National Insurance Act 1946 (administrative expenses) as amended or applied by any subsequent enactment, and
(b) any payments into the Exchequer to be made in consequence of the new Act.

Resolution agreed to.

NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(HIGHER CONTRIBUTIONS AND BENEFITS UNDER NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT 1946.)

3.52 p.m.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: I beg to move, in page 2, line 19, at the end to insert:
(5) (a) The amount of sickness benefit shall be increased by such amount as is hereinafter mentioned if as a result of loss of faculty the beneficiary requires constant attendance at home.
(b) the amount by which sickness benefit is to be increased under this section shall be determined in accordance with regulations by reference to the extent and nature of the attendance required by the beneficiary.

The Chairman: I think that it would be convenient to the Committee to discuss, at the same time, the following two Amendments standing in the name of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle):

In page 2, line 22, at end add:
(6) The weekly rate of sickness benefit shall be increased by such amounts as are set out

in Schedule 2 of this Act if, as a result of loss of faculty, the beneficiary is likely to remain permanently incapable of work.

In Schedule 2, page 12, line 32, at end insert:
9. Amounts by which weekly rates of sickness benefit are increased on account of permanent unemployability:

(a) for beneficiaries over 18 or with dependants, / 67 6 /;
(b) for beneficiaries under 18 without dependants / 38 6 /.

Mrs. Castle: I had hoped that you might consider that we should discuss this group of Amendments together, Sir William, because they are all designed to recognise that people can be as seriously disabled and, in some cases, permanently disabled by natural causes as they can as a result of war injury or accidents at work. The purpose of the Amendments, therefore, is to try, where medically desirable, to keep these people out of hospital and to make financial provision of an amount which would enable them to stay at home instead.
At present, there is no financial provision at all, either under the National Health Service or the National Insurance Act—or even under the National Assistance Benefit Regulations—to meet the kind of situation which the Amendments are trying to meet. The absurdity of the present situation is obvious if one gives a little thought to the matter. Why should we force people to go into hospital when there is no medical reason why they should, when they would much prefer to stay at home and, not least, when it would be much cheaper to the taxpayer if they were to stay at home?
We are all aware of the growing financial cost of hospitalisation. I have with me some of the figures published by the Ministry of Health concerning the cost of keeping patients in hospital. It comes as a shock to some of us to realise the great disparity between the amount of money we pay for people when they go into hospital and the amount we pay them when they are dealing with their illnesses at home.
Moreover, the cost has been rising steadily in the past few years. It varies—and since these figures were published the cost may have risen still further—from £30 a week in a regional hospital for acute cases to no less than £42 9s. 4d., which was the cost in 1962 to keep a


patient for one week in a London training hospital. Clearly, in circumstances when we are seeking desirable economies, we should consider this matter most seriously.
The historical reasons for our making this provision in some cases and not in others are, I think, well known. After the war, when we came to recast the National Insurance system, we were all full of the needs of the war pensioners; the men who had served their country and had become seriously disabled in the process. We thought of all the humane ways by which we could add to the war disability pension additional payments which were necessary if the disabled persons were to lead tolerable lives.
So we introduced the constant attendance allowance for the person who needed waiting on at home and the unemployability supplement for someone who had permanently lost the capacity to work. At the same time, the Labour Government decided—and perfectly rightly—that it was difficult to justify, on any social or humane grounds, why similar payments should not be made to people who were disabled by an injury at work. So those payments were extended to industrial injury benefit recipients as well. However, they were never extended to people who might be permanently and drastically disabled by natural causes.
There are all sorts of cases one can think of where this can happen, but because it was a naturally caused catastrophe and not one caused by injury at work or by war, we have left that sort of person to be completely dependent on sickness benefits. There is no way under the National Health Service by which we can make any financial payments to patients who are trying to deal with their disability at home. Since that time—since the social insurance scheme was recast as a result of the Beveridge Report—we have learned a great deal about its inadequacies and our ideas about many aspects of social insurance have been undergoing a progressive change.
The Bill we are discussing today gives us a long needed opportunity to look at another of the gaps in our social insurance provisions. I first raised this matter on Second Reading because I had had brought to my notice that day a particular case which graphically illustrated the sort

of problem I had in mind. The case does not arise in my constituency, but has been brought to my attention by a friend who is working with and trying to help a young man totally and permanently crippled with polio.
4.0 p.m.
The young man is still only 30 years of age. He is a young man of great intelligence, who is trying, with enormous courage and gallantry, to battle against a disability that would have defeated most other people; trying not to accept a fate of permanent invalidism and hospitalisation, but rather to build a new life for himself at home, where he can read and can write books and have around him all the things that make life tolerable.
Under our present provisions, be is having to do it on an income of £4 15s. from National Assistance. For various reasons—he had been working in Kenya—he does not qualify for sickness benefit, but that is broadly irrelevant, because even the increased benefit provided under the Bill would not be sufficient to enable him to maintain himself at home although he is a bachelor living in a modest council fiat. This young man needs help. He needs permanently to be waited on. He needs normal domestic help and, if he is to do any kind of creative work, he needs additional assistance.
At the moment, he is getting that assistance simply because of the kindheartedness and charity of friends. He lives under a shadow that is even more serious to him than that of his disability—the shadow of the fear that one day he will not be able to continue to cope any longer at home, that his friends may no longer be able to keep on helping him, and that he may have to give in and go into hospital. If he did that, under our Welfare State he would be maintained in hospital for the rest of his life at a cost ranging from £35 to £42 a week.
Is not that a ludicrous situation? He could live modestly, and much more fully, at home on an income of £12 to £14 a week. In that event, he could still pay for his help, still keep his little bungalow going and still have something like a human being's life—and, I repeat, he is only 30 years of age. But despite the efforts made by him and his friends to contact his own Member of Parliament and the Ministry of Health—and the fullest inquiries have been


made by all those responsible in this case I do not accuse them in any way of not having done their best to help him—under the existing law, even with the National Assistance Board being brought in and the extent of any possible supplementation having already been dealt with, the maximum amount that he can receive is £4 15s. a week. Next May, when the new National Assistance scales come in, that sum will no doubt be increased to £5 1s. a week, but his most modest minimum expenses would amount to between £12 and £14 a week.
My friend who is trying to help this young man pointed out to me that if he had got this disability at work he would, under the new increases proposed in the Bill, have been entitled to the 100 per cent. disability pension of £5 15s. a week, supplemented by the maximum constant attendance allowance for the most seriously disabled cases of £5 a week, and also, presumably, by the unemployability supplement of £3 7s. 6d., giving him a weekly income of £14 2s. 6d. If he had that, he would think that all his worries were over, his life would take on a hope, a security and a fullness that it must, as things are, for ever lack.
I have quoted only this one case, but since I made that Second Reading speech I have received letters saying that I am right, and that there is not only this case, but dozens of other cases where people who will be ill for a long time as a result of incurable or chronic disease could be kept at home at much less cost to the community if only there were some way of getting a financial payment for those ready to wait on them. It must be remembered that very often those who help in this way, and make their services available, do so at the cost of their own entitlement, either to a wage earned elsewhere or to any kind of unemployment benefit. They sacrifice all possible means of maintaining themselves in other ways.
The aim of the Amendments is broadly twofold. It is, first, that regulations should be introduced laying down the amounts of constant attendance allowance that would be payable, in addition to sickness benefit, according to the extent and nature of the attendance required. The aim, of

course, is to make constant attendance allowance payable in those cases where the sick person is being nursed at home. The Amendments do not specify the amount, but we could discuss on the Regulations what amounts would be appropriate and how they might be graduated in each case to meet the degree of attendance necessary. The second aim is to provide that an unemployability supplement should be paid on the same scale as is paid in the case of industrial injury where the beneficiary is likely to remain permanently incapable of work.
There could well be faults in the draftsmanship of the Amendments as they stand, but I hope that the Minister will not turn them down on that ground. At this stage, it is the principle that we seek to establish. If the wording needs to be altered, the Minister will have an opportunity of suggesting a better form of words.
In all sincerity, I ask that we should seize this opportunity to deal with what is clearly a glaring anomaly in our social insurance scheme and, in doing so, bring a touch of humanity into our administration and sunshine and hope into innumerable lives and, at the same time, and by no means least, save ourselves a good deal of money in the process.

Mrs. Harriet Slater: I want to reinforce the argument made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) that by accepting the Amendment we would be extending to a class of people who, up to now, have been neglected some of the benefits they would have got had they been injured in war or industry.
I think, also, of the married man whose wife has to give up her job to look after him. I know that there are large numbers of the type of people to whom my hon. Friend has referred, but there are also those whose only hope of adding to their income is for the wife to go out to work and leave the man alone in the house for hours, hoping that someone will come in and look after him. The only alternative to that is for the woman to give up her job and seek National Assistance—something that she does not want to do and should


not need to do in such circumstances—because someone must be in constant attendance upon the sick person.
I think of those who suffer from sclerosis and who reach the stage where they are unable to feed themselves and cannot walk about. They have to get about in an invalid chair and somebody has to do practically everything for them. If there were a wife or someone else in attendance they could be sure of being cared for and could even go out to look at the wider spaces outside their home. There are also those who are badly crippled with arthritis, or who suffer from thrombosis or some other cardiac troubles and become almost incapable of getting around. Unless they have somebody with them, their lives become a constant misery. I ask that something be done for these people as well.
There are the people who are unable to manage on their money and who go short of the bare necessities as well as constant attendance. If these allowances were given to them in the way that they are given to the industrially injured or the war injured it would mean that they could have not day-to-day but hour-to-hour attendance, which they ought to have, and they could have the care and regular meals they need. These people who suffer the great tragedy of long-term illness should not be subjected to long hours of loneliness.
I should like to emphasise the cost to the State if we do not give these people a constant attendance allowance and they have to go into hospital. Even in the regional hospitals for chronic cases the lowest cost per case was £22 5s. 5d. This is amazing.

Mrs. Castle: It is more than that now.

Mrs. Slater: Yes, that was in 1960. It is now £26 5s. 10d. and, as my hon. Friend has said, it is in some cases £42 9s. 4d. a week. How much better it would be to make it possible for these people to be cared for at home rather than be subjected to long periods in hospital with the added expense that that brings not only to the State which has to provide the services but to members of their families who have to spend money on bus and train fares to visit them and buy gifts of food to bring some comfort to them. The cost per case can be as

high in the London teaching hospitals as £92 7s. 5d. The lowest figure now in the regional hospitals for acute cases is £55 15s. 11d.
The time has come to give some fresh thought to this old problem. We should look at these cases in the same way as we look at the industrially injured. There is also the question of unemployability. Nothing worse can happen to a relatively young person than to be unemployable because he is suffering from some disease. We might be told that there are Remploy and similar organisations to meet these cases, but these touch very few people who become unemployable.
4.15 pm.
Apart from anything else, it is a terrible psychological tragedy to these people when they realise that they are not only ill, but are likely to be for a long time, with very little possibility of their becoming employed. It needs a great deal of courage and change in mental outlook to alter one's whole form of livelihood and find some other job. Nearly always the people who are best able to do that are those who are artistically inclined. They can learn to use their artistic capabilities to do a new job. In a few cases, if they are lucky, they might find themselves doing a job which they have never thought they would be doing. In the great majority of ordinary cases, however, these people are forced to face the fact that they are not likely to be employed in the future.
I hope that the Ministerial reply will not be that because we did nothing in 1948 we must now carry on with the present arrangements. We have had a great deal of experience since 1948 of meeting these cases. There must be particulars of hundreds of them in the files at the Ministry. We have now reached the stage where we should take a completely new look at this problem in the light of the circumstances which have been put to the Ministry. We have the medical facilities to make sure who are the really long-term sick people.
I repeat that I hope we shall not be told that because nothing was done earlier we must not alter our view and that these people can apply for National Assistance. For goodness' sake, let us take these cases out of the hands of National Assistance and give these people justice and what should be their moral right.

Mr. James Griffiths: I hope that the Minister will give careful consideration to the Amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), which have been supported so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater). I call as a witness my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. B. Taylor) in saying that this is one of the things which, if circumstances had been different, I should have liked to have amended in the National Insurance Act.
When we launched the Industrial Injuries Scheme the position was that the two kinds of benefits to which these Amendments refer—the constant attendance allowance and the unemployability supplement—began with war pensions. We changed considerably the method by which we assess compensation for industrial injury and we based it on loss of faculty rather than on loss of earnings.
It was found in practice, however, that if it had not been for our introducing a hardship allowance the whole scheme would have broken down. We introduced that element which was not in the world of the old war pensions. These provisions for constant attendance allowance and unemployability allowance were incorporated from the old pensions warrants into the new Industrial Injuries Scheme. On the whole, they worked well. To some extent they have not been so absolutely essential since 1948 as they were before, for the reason that sickness benefit has become payable at the same time as industrial injury benefit whereas hitherto they were mutually exclusive.
I believe that there is the strongest possible case for accepting these Amendments, particularly the first one providing for constant attendance allowance. Of all beneficiaries under our National Insurance legislation, the sick are the ones least able to have a pressure-group to speak for them. As a trade unionist, I know very well that the industrial disabled can call upon the services of their organisations to work on their behalf. Indeed, it is part of our job in the miners' union to see to these things. I think that the Minister would have had very much more pressure about the Industrial Injuries Act were it not for the fact that coal mining is now nationalised and the National Coal

Board and the National Union of Mineworkers see to these matters. The organised workers are able to apply pressure to gain improvements.
The sick have no pressure group. Today, the old-age pensioners are organising, and, quite rightly, they make their influence felt both between and at elections. The sick have no one to speak for them. The most tragic of all beneficiaries under our National Insurance Scheme are the chronically sick whose sickness is long-term, but not attributable to their employment. It is for this reason that I have risen to say a few words in support particularly of the first Amendment. I support the Amendment which deals with unemployability supplement also, although I know that different arguments apply in that case.
We all have knowledge of the circumstances of those whose have been struck down by sickness and compelled to stay at home. What a tremendous burden is carried by the family. We know of women whose lives have been a terrifying burden for years as they have cared devotedly for husbands or sons, without any payment at all. Until 1948, there was nothing for the long-term sick but 10s. 6d. per week. Under the old scheme, the longer a person was unemployed the less he got. He received more sickness benefit during the first six months than he did afterwards. All he received, if he was sick for a long time, was 10s. 6d., unless he was fortunate enough to belong to one of the more prosperous approved societies which was able to add a few shillings.
At least, we have changed that and provided continuous sickness benefit at the standard rate, under certain conditions, and we do not reduce it at the end of six months. However, what happens now, if a person is sick for the rest of his life, is that he receives only the standard benefit plus whatever is given in supplementation.
There is here a provision which has worked admirably in respect of war pensioners and beneficiaries under the Industrial Injuries Act. It has served a purpose and met a need. It has been a welcome benefit which has brought relief to countless beneficiaries under the war pensions Warrant and the Industrial Injuries Act. Since it has proved to be of value in those


schemes, let us, at least, accept in principle that there is every reason to consider applying it under our National Insurance legislation to the long-term sick.
The financial burden will not be very great. There will not be a very large number of cases. Indeed, I should be interested to learn from the Minister—I am sure that he has the figures—what is the number of people under the Industrial Injuries Act at present receiving constant attendance allowance. I have the impression that the number is not large. I may be wrong, but I suspect that it may be many fewer than we suspected when we began to design the scheme way back in 1946. Therefore, I do not believe that the burden added by the first Amendment would be a heavy one. The cost can, I believe, be met.
I put it to the Minister in this way. To make the concession for which we ask—certainly, to accept the first Amendment providing for constant attendance allowance—the Minister need not say that he cannot do it without an increase in contributions. I think that it could be done within the existing resources of the Fund. Moreover, I myself would not be averse to saying that, if necessary, he need not be afraid to dip a little into the reserve, which is now well over £1,000 million, as he admitted to me the other day.
I ask the Committee to think of what it would mean to the long-term sick themselves, to the mothers, the wives—

Mrs. Slater: And daughters.

Mr. Griffiths: —and daughters, too, who spend their lives looking after them. The whole home is affected. If we could incorporate the proposals now before the Committee, in particular, the constant attendance allowance, into the Bill, we should render a great service to people who, in the past, have been neglected and to whose needs we ought to pay more attention.
In adding my voice to that of my hon. Friends and pressing the Amendments on the Minister, I hope very much that he will give the most careful consideration to the matter. This is something which I should like to see done. I hope that he, too, would like to see it done. If we both agree, there is no reason why the Amendments should not be incorporated in the Bill.

Mr. Tom Brown: I support the Amendment because, if accepted, it would bring a little hope and cheer to those who have hitherto been left out of our insurance legislation. In any study of the insurance Measures which the House of Commons has passed to provide benefits for those in need of help, there stands out a large group of cases hitherto left by the wayside. These Amendments apply to that group.
I have heard many illustrations of how our proposals would bring joy and happiness to those for whom we are concerned, but there comes to my mind at this moment the photograph which appeared in one of the national papers last Saturday of a man who has been on his sickbed for 22 years and 8 months. I want the Minister to visualise that man's suffering—not for 22 weeks but for 22 years and 8 months. He has had to have constant attention all that time, and his unfortunate wife has had to look after his every need.
I will tell the Committee his name. He is Tom Lawton, and he lives at High Street, Alsager Bank, Stoke-on-Trent. I have permission to give those particulars publicly here. If anyone wants further evidence, he can get it by writing direct to the man himself. The last time I had a letter from him, he needed at least eight pillows to keep him in a comfortable position.
Now, in 1963, we are years away from the days of the great benefactor, Lloyd George, who introduced this type of legislation to us years ago. Yet, today, we have to put down Amendments to a National Insurance Bill in order to bring relief and happiness to those forced to suffer as a result of accidents in the pits.
4.30 p.m.
I sometimes wonder—I say this with all respect—whether the senior officials of the Department, when amending legislation is being brought forward, collect evidence of the facts before they compile the Bill. This Amendment should not be necessary. The people with whom it deals should be covered by the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) said that these people had been left by the wayside. But after the Bill has passed through all its stages there will still be some people left outside its provisions. We want to cover as many


cases as we can, and the Amendment goes a long way to covering a number of people who have been left by the wayside.
The Minister cannot advance the argument about cost, because so few cases are concerned. But those few cases should have the attention of this Committee. I plead with the Minister not to say "No" to this Amendment, but to tell us that he will accept it and that he has the unfortunate man to whom I have referred, and many other unfortunate men, in mind. There are also unfortunate women who have a grave responsibility because they are called upon 24 hours a day, seven days a week and 52 weeks a year to give attention to the victims of sickness and injury.
I hope that the Minister will not advance the argument that the cost involved in this Amendment is too much. However much it may cost, these people stand, and have stood for years, in dire need of something which will at least bring them a little joy and happiness in the eventide of their lives. I strongly support the Amendment.

Mr. Bernard Taylor: It would be remiss of me if I were not to say a few words in support of this admirable Amendment if for no other reason than that for some time, in many debates which have taken place on insurance matters, I have argued the claims of the long-term sick.
We could all quote, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) has done, individual cases, which I wish to do in a moment. I support what my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) said about the constant attendance allowance and the distinction that there is between the Industrial Injuries Scheme and the National Insurance Scheme. I am sure that the Minister will say, "Why make a distinction?" My right hon. Friend has explained why. It is now about 17 years since the inception of these schemes, and it is time that the whole matter was considered again. If omissions were made in 1946, and if we are convinced that those omissions should be put right, there is no reason in the world why we should not do that.
The people with whom we are concerned are unorganised. They have no voice; they suffer in silence. It is we in

this Chamber who must continue to press the claims of people in circumstances so eloquently described by my hon. Friends the Members for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater).
I wish to draw attention to two cases. The first concerns a man with whom I used to work in the mines many years ago and who fell sick in 1938, 25 years ago. He had a very severe chest condition. He could get neither a war pension for being gassed in the war nor an industrial injuries pension for pneumoconiosis because, it was said, he had emphysema and bronchitis. From 1938 until the day he died in 1962, he was constantly on sickness benefit and had to have constant domestic care and attention from his wife. The National Assistance Board was extremely good both to him and to his wife, but that was not what they wanted. It would have been very nice if he had had some supplement from the National Insurance Fund by right because of his very grave sickness disability.
A friend of this man had both arms off at about the time that he fell sick in 1938, and his wife became entitled to the constant attendance allowance under the Industrial Injuries Act. Here we have two cases, one concerning a man permanently disabled by sickness who received no supplement and the other concerning a man permanently disabled by an accident at work whose wife received the constant attendance allowance. One can understand the feeling between the wives of these two men who would never work again and who were treated vastly differently from the financial point of view under the two schemes.
To talk about individual cases is perhaps more convincing than to deal with the general principle of the matter, because it brings before the Committee the hardship of the circumstances through which these people are passing. I know a young man in my constituency in his middle twenties who is suffering from multiple sclerosis. He is bedridden and will never work again. It is for cases like this that the Amendment seeks to make provision.
I hope that the Minister will listen to the pleas which have been made and that at long last there will be some recognition for these long-term sickness cases.

Mr. Laurence Pavitt: I wish to add my voice to those of my hon. Friends. I approach the Amendment from a different point of view, but I arrive at precisely the same point. I approach the Amendment from the point of view of health rather than from that of pensions, but the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) deals with that angle as well as with the pension angle, and I congratulate her on tabling it.
Perhaps the Committee is at its best when it has an Amendment of this kind before it, because the Minister has to deal with a wide range of categories involving millions of people, and it is only when we are able to concentrate on a small dispossessed area that we can be at our best in showing concern for people who happen to be in a much more unfortunate position than the rest of us and who may otherwise be left out.
I want to add to the remarks of my hon. Friends the Members for Mansfield (Mr. B. Taylor) and Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) about multiple or disseminated sclerosis, not only from the point of view that they put forward but from the therapeutic point of view. If a person has the misfortune to contract multiple sclerosis, the greatest factor in the treatment of it is his attitude of mind.
The treatment depends on keeping them domiciliary as long as possible and on persuading them that theirs is not a hopeless case and that they can, by continuing to maximise their physical and mental output, not only control the disease and hold it but make inroads against it. This is a constant day-to-day, hour-by-hour, fight both for the person concerned and for those in the house taking care to ensure that that person is buttressed in the fight.
The point of defeat is the moment when one says, "You have to go to hospital". Very often that point is reached, not because of physical causes, but because of financial causes which make it imperative when one can no longer manage to maintain the person affected in his home surroundings because of the social conditions and the fact that the income in the home is not sufficient. I should like to reinforce the case put forward by my hon. Friends, because it has a particular impact on the Amendment.
From the health point of view, during the last five years we have watched a complete trend away from the institutional towards the domiciliary. We are seeking more and more to treat cases in their own surroundings rather than put them into hospital. The Minister will know of the great inroads which, thanks to the Mental Health Act, have been made to get people out of mental hospitals, to rehabilitate them and put them into the community. Very often, these are people who will need care and attention for the rest of their lives.
What we seek to do therapeutically is to rehabilitate those people and give them a greater amount of individuality to conquer their disabilities. We can often do that best if we surround them with their families and friends and put them, as far as possible, to doing useful work in the community. From that aspect, the Amendment would be a great help in the treatment of this section of the community.
The Committee will know that the Minister of Health has undertaken to close some thousands of beds in the mental hospitals before 1975. If those beds are to be closed and people are to be taken out of the hospitals, they must be cared for in their own homes, but they need sufficient money to be catered for in that way.
The points raised by my hon. Friend as to the cost of hospitalisation are pertinent. In terms of the taxpayer, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) pointed out, the burden of carrying these Amendments would not be great, and the amount that the Minister of Health would save by not hospitalising some of these people would represent a net saving to the taxpayer.
The occupation of chronic beds is a constant headache to the National Health Service. To put into a hospital somebody like the man mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown), who has been ill for 22 years, immobilises a bed in hospital for all that time and puts that much of the Health Service out of commission. Therefore, from all points of view—not only cost, but the efficient running of the hospital service—the Amendment would enable us to free hospital beds and would enable the hospital service to


treat other people, thus having side effects of great benefit.
The average cost of £92 7s. 5d. quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North in connection with a London hospital is an average over all cases treated in London teaching hospitals. The kind of case to which the Amendment relates is the case with the highest cost, because it concerns the long-term people. A figure of £92 is infinitesimal in comparison with the case of the man quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Ince, who is ill for 22 years or more.
The Minister could meet the wishes of the Committee and accept the Amendment without incurring a great deal of cost to the Exchequer. I sincerely hope that he listens at least to the views of this side of the Committee and accepts the Amendment.

4.45 p.m.

Dame Irene Ward: I wish to add one or two points for consideration by my right hon. Friend. I have a shrewd suspicion that he will inform us that a great many of these most unfortunate and chronic sick cases can, and should, be dealt with by the home help service, the district nursing service and the general welfare services of the local authority. I submit one or two items for his consideration before he takes that line.
Part of the problem which confronts administration, and certainly confronts those who have to get involved in legislation, is the wide variation in the services emanating from local authorities. This is an important point. Some local authorities run a first-class home help service. Others have hardly yet scratched the ground towards providing a service. It is important to remember that in all the services a contribution comes from the Treasury. When there is a responsibility on the taxpayer, I fail to see why some people should get better service and some get less good service. The same applies to the district nursing services. In some areas, district nurses are in short supply. In other areas, there is a better service because more district nurses are available.
The welfare services of local authorities vary tremendously. Very often, the services provided by local authorities come from the crusading spirits of those

who serve as elected members of the local authorities. Some local authorities look to one side of their public responsibility and to some extent, perhaps, neglect the other side. What worries me about the whole problem of the chronic sick is that according to where one happens to live, one may be rendered a very good service or, possibly, a rather indifferent service.
I congratulate the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and the hon. Lady the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) on putting down the Amendment, because I have an idea that this is probably the first time we have discussed the matter in this form and in this detail. It is a very good thing that the question has been raised.
I recognise that it takes a long time to win a battle in Parliament. Before reaching any decision, my right hon. Friend the Minister should have gone into all the points that I am raising about the variety of services that are available to the chronic sick. I should like to hear from him how far he has discussed the implications of the Amendment with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health.
In matters of this kind, two Ministries are linked together. Nearly all hon. Members who have spoken have referred in great detail to certain aspects of the responsibilities of the Ministry of Health. Indeed, the hon. Member for Blackburn, like the hon. Lady the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North, referred to the cost to the Health Service of people who permanently occupy hospital beds.
Before my right hon. Friend replies on the Amendment and before he commits himself to Government policy, whether for or against the Amendment, I want him to say in specific detail whether he has discussed the matter in detail at the appropriate level with the Ministry of Health. If so, I should be glad to know the answer they arrived at in their discussions.
I am quite certain, now that we have gone so far in providing welfare services, that we can really get down to bettering the general administration. Although I am certain that this particular battle will not be won today, I hope that my hon. Friend will give a sympathetic answer, for many people are interested in the chronic sick. Incidentally, I see


that it is reported that there are more mentally sick people in the South than in the North.
I hope that we shall get a sympathetic reply, and I very much appreciate this matter being raised. The position of the chronic sick has not had all the attention Parliament could have given to it.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: I am surprised that the Minister has not yet intervened in the Debate.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): I have been waiting to give everyone a chance to speak before replying, I shall reply, and not my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Wainwright: I apologise to the hon. Lady, but I have been watching both her and her right hon. Friend in the hope of seeing a sign that they would give way on this point. Judging from their attitude so far, however, I am afraid that the answer will be "No". I shall be surprised if it is not.
I do not know how anyone could withstand the case for this proposal, put forward so strongly by my hon. Friends the Members for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater). For anyone to withstand that case must mean that his heart is not where it should be when we are discussing a subject of this kind. I cannot understand why, in this Parliament, we have not dealt with this issue before. I know that we have tried to do so from this side of the House time and again, but the Government have not accepted the principle.
Why should there be difference of treatment between people who are incapable of looking after themselves? It is not their fault that they are so sick. Let us take the example of multiple sclerosis. It is heart-breaking to see the victims of that disease. I know of the case of a man only in his forties who has to lie helpless. Whenever he wants to sit in a chair he must be lifted out of bed and into the chair, where his wife has to prop him up. He has to lie helpless, seeing his wife working so hard trying to maintain some kind of home life for

them both, and nursing him continuously. He knows well that the income of the house is insufficient and that she denies herself in trying to provide him with certain small delicacies to try and make his life a little easier.
Another case I know is that of a girl in her late twenties. Until recently, she had to be lifted on to the bus so that she could travel 30 miles to work. But she has now reached the stage when she can go no longer and must stay at home. Slowly but surely she will become one of those cases we are discussing. Her parents are to look after her. They will keep her at home, but without sufficient help from the Government.
We should look at these matters more humanely than before. We should do our best to help the chronic sick to stay at home with their families. I have every praise for our hospitals and their staffs, but I do not think that they can offer more comfort to a person than he can receive at home if it is possible for him to stay there, so that his dear ones can nurse him. It is necessary that we look at this problem from a more sympathetic point of view.
Home helps have been mentioned. They do tremendously good work, but is it their duty to lift a sick person out of bed into a chair and back again in order to change the sheets, or to do other things of that kind? I do not know. But I do think that there are plenty of other kinds of jobs which they could do for our sick and injured and aged people and that we should take over some responsibility for this work.
We should make it possible for a couple to engage someone to come in for an hour or so to help out. If we cannot afford that, then our present society stands condemned. What will posterity think when it sees how we treat people in this situation? We shall be condemned as heartless; and if we cannot deal with it better than we have been doing we shall deserve all the criticism levelled at our society.
In discussing why these people are not looked after, some of my hon. Friends have mentioned organisations. It is a criticism against us that we ignore individuals who are not organised. Selective cases can be found of individuals having to suffer because there is not a group of people to look after their interests. It is


the duty of Parliament to make sure that individuals are properly looked after. We should not sit back satisfied that we are doing our best for this section or that section of the community while leaving a small number of people out in the cold. It is bad enough for a person to be helpless and to have to depend on other people, but not to have sufficient money for a reasonable standard of living is even worse, and is something which must make such a person's mind more difficult to keep balanced.
Most homes in this country can afford television sets and nearly every home has a radio set. I wonder how many of these people cannot afford the rental for a television set and how many of them cannot afford to pay the £4 television licence.
This is another instance in which we can put pressure on the Government and hope that they will yield to it and make certain that these people have some kind of joy and happiness in the last few years of their lives. As they lie in bed, they have plenty of time to think. We have to try to ease their tremendous burdens. I hope that the hon. Lady will say that the Government will at least accept the principle of the Amendment so that we can be assured that these people will be looked after as are others who are similarly unfortunate.

5.0 p.m.

Mrs. Thatcher: When, in her Second Reading speech, the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) raised a specific case, I naturally made inquiries about it. It was that case which stimulated her interest and which led her to propose the Amendment, but it would not be affected by the Amendment.

Mrs. Castle: If the principle of supplementation of sickness benefit by constant attendance allowance were accepted by the Committee, the National Assistance Board would surely be capable of following that example and make similar supplementation available in similar cases.

Mrs. Thatcher: The National Assistance Board already tailors its grants to individual needs. I understand that the man whose case was quoted by the hon. Lady could not claim sickness benefit either because he was not an insured

person, or because his contribution record did not have the requisite number of contributions. The Amendment is hinged to those who could claim sickness benefits and who are fully insured persons with full contribution records. I made inquiries about the case which the hon. Lady mentioned from our friends in the Assistance Board, to whom I pay great tribute in cases like this. The figures which the hon. Lady gave are not the whole story and I will write to her after having made further inquiries.
When she mentioned the figures, I was a little surprised that we appeared not to give more help to a person in such severe need, but I am sure that she would not expect me to pronounce a judgment or opinion until I have had an opportunity to look at all the facts. It is a valid point that the case which stimulated her interest would not be affected by the Amendment.

Mrs. Castle: Surely the hon. Lady realises that I was using that case just as an illustration. I wanted to get the facts clear, so I made it plain that it was a case on National Assistance, but I went on to point out that that was irrelevant to my argument. As the man's friend who wrote to me pointed out, if he were on sickness benefit, even at the increased rate, and it were supplemented by National Assistance, he would still come up against this kind of National Assistance maximum. The hon. Lady's argument has nothing to do with the case I was making.

Mrs. Thatcher: I would not agree with that at all. What I was trying to discuss was how far we could help severely disabled people within the framework of the National Insurance Scheme.

Mrs. Castle: Mrs. Castle rose——

Mrs. Thatcher: I would be grateful if I could get a word in edgeways, now that I have waited so long and listened to the arguments of others.
The hon. Lady knows full well that if the contribution record is complete, sickness benefit can be drawn for an indefinite period, plus cover for dependants, as was pointed out by the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths). If


a person is not insured, no sickness benefit is payable, this being an insurance scheme.
Comparisons have been drawn with the Industrial Injuries Scheme, which, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, is based on completely different principles. National Insurance is based entirely on benefit for incapacity to work, for loss of earnings, whereas the Industrial Injuries Scheme is based on benefit for loss of faculty.
Comparisons between the two schemes are constantly drawn, especially by those hon. Members who represent mining constituencies and who have been miners and who make certain that the Industrial Injuries Scheme always has a preferential rate over the National Insurance Scheme, for two very good and valid reasons—first, that many of the occupations are dangerous and, secondly, that the injuries are received while the person is working under someone else's orders. The Industrial Injuries Scheme is hinged from the start on benefit for loss of faculty, whereas the National Insurance Scheme is hinged from the start on benefit for incapacity for work and in no way compensation for disablement. This goes right to the very root of the problem and it is not easy as the result of an Amendment to graft an idea from one scheme on to another which depends on entirely different principles.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I follow the hon. Lady's argument quite clearly. While it is quite true that the two schemes are based on different principles, the constant attendance allowance is the one thing which should be applied to both. It is the one case in which, under the Industrial Injuries Scheme as under the War Pensions Warrants, the problem is whether a person who is living at home is so disabled that he or she needs constant attendance. If he or she does, then a supplement is paid. That can be applied to ordinary sickness as well as disablement without in any way interfering with the difference between the basic principles of the two schemes.

Mrs. Thatcher: I get the point of the right hon. Gentleman's intervention. Constant attendance allowance is hinged on 100 per cent. disablement, which is loss of faculty, and the right hon. Gentleman

knows that it is not easy to assess 100 per cent. disablement even under the Industrial Injuries Scheme and that it is not easy to agree on what should be scheduled diseases.
Many bed-ridden cases would not be affected by the Amendment because the insurance principle would not apply to them. I have listened carefully and sympathetically to all that has been said and I know that many of the cases which have been raised by hon. Members on either side of the Committee are cases of people who are not insured. I know that the desire is as far as possible to help the severely disabled.

Mr. B. Taylor: The hon. Lady is not correct. The cases which we have recited are of insured persons who are covered by the National Insurance Scheme. It is putting it too high to say that the majority of cases do not come within the ambit of that scheme. Most of them do.

Mrs. Thatcher: I was under the impression that most of them did not, particularly those concerning people who had been sick for a long time before the onset of the scheme. In any case, there will be examples which are not affected by the scheme.
I have listened to all the arguments, but we have not had time to consult the Minister of Health, or the Minister of Housing and Local Government, because the Amendment appeared on the Notice Paper for the first time only this morning in company with others. That would be a valid reason for saying "No" to a major change in the insurance scheme.

Mrs. Castle: Mrs. Castle rose——

Mrs. Thatcher: I would be so glad if the hon. Lady would afford me the courtesies which I have accorded her.

Mrs. Castle: I want the hon. Lady to afford me the courtesy of giving me an opportunity to explain an apparent discourtesy to her. The Amendment appeared so late because the Committee stage of the Bill has been rushed on the tail of the Second Reading, giving very little time to give notice of Amendments. That is not our fault.

Mrs. Thatcher: I think the hon. Lady will realise that we cannot have a great change as a result of so little consideration of what is predominantly a rates


Bill, and the reason we are trying to rush it through is to get the benefits of the Bill to people as soon as possible.
I have listened to what the hon. Lady said, and I undertake to consider how best, within the framework of the National Insurance Scheme, we can help the severely disabled. That is what I think the hon. Lady wants.
I make this plea. I hope that those who have made the chronic sick and severely disabled their top priority for the purpose of this debate will not, when we discuss other beneficiaries of the National Insurance Scheme, in turn, make these beneficiaries their top priority, because it does not add up.
I hope that as a result of the undertaking given on behalf of my right hon. Friend that within the framework of the National Insurance Scheme we shall consider how best to help the severely disabled, the hon. Lady will not press the Amendment.

Mr. B. Taylor: Will the hon. Lady or her right hon. Friend give the House an undertaking that the National Insurance Advisory Committee will be asked to look at this matter?

Mrs. Thatcher: I cannot accede to that request at the moment. The Committee has a great deal of work in hand, and I would prefer, under the direction and guidance of my right hon. Friend, to look at it first.

Mrs. Slater: On a point of order. Has the hon. Lady the right to assume that because we have stressed this Amendment we are likely to lay stress on other Amendments on the Notice Paper? The hon. Lady ought to deal with this Amendment and wait to see what happens in respect of the others.

The Temporary Chairman (Sir James Duncan): I do not regard that as a point of order.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: The hon. Lady ought to be aware of the fact that since the Conservative Administration came into power, in 1951, no Amendment moved by an hon. Member on this side of the Committee to a Bill of this kind has been accepted.

Miss Margaret Herbison: The hon. Lady ought not to chide us on this side of the Committee and give us advice about what we should

consider to be our priorities, and what we should not. I assure the hon. Lady that as we go through the various Amendments we shall put up as strong a case as we can for each one of them. Whether she continues to chide us or not will not concern us in any way.
We have been discussing three Amendments. The hon. Lady in her reply—and I am not chiding her for this—dealt mainly with the Amendment dealing with constant attendance allowance. As I say, I am not chiding her for that, because almost all my hon. Friends who took part in the discussion referred to the need for constant attendance allowance for these people.
I think that the hon. Lady could have dealt with the second Amendment in which we say that the basic rate of sickness benefit for the chronic sick should be raised to the basic rate of industrial injuries benefit. It may be that the Government could not possibly make a decision about this overnight and would have to give careful consideration to it, but, with regard to the other two Amendments, I should have thought that the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary had for many months been considering what could be done in respect of constant attendance allowance and unemployability supplement.
5.15 p.m.
In her reply, the hon. Lady said that many of the cases raised by hon. Members on this side of the Committee were not covered by the National Insurance Act. This shows how ignorant she is of the cases we are discussing. The bon. Lady spoke about hon. Members from mining constituencies continually raising these matters, and chided us that we always tried to ensure that the industrially disabled received more than those who were disabled through ordinary sickness. Many of us who come from mining areas know of many insured people who are desperately in need of this constant attendance allowance and I shall give some examples.
In any industrial city, town, or village, it is possible to find living in adjoining houses two severely disabled people. In one case the pneumoconiosis medical board has decided that the man is suffering from pneumoconiosis, and he receives industrial injuries benefit. In addition, he receives unemployability


supplement, and perhaps hardship allowance. Then, when he needs constant attention in the home, he is given the constant attendance allowance. The result is that quite a substantial income goes into the home.
The other man may have almost as severe a chest condition. His own doctor says that he is suffering from pneumoconiosis. Specialists in an infirmary examine him clinically, have him X-rayed, diagnose the X-ray plate, and say that he is suffering from pneumoconiosis, but when he goes before the pneumoconiosis medical board, the board says that he is not suffering from that disease. He may be suffering from emphysema, or perhaps chronic bronchitis. The extent of his suffering is as great as that of the man next door who is suffering from pneumoconiosis, but what does he get by way of benefit?
The man receives National Insurance benefit which, as the hon. Lady says, can continue throughout his life, thanks to legislation introduced by a Labour Government, but he does not receive unemployability supplement or hardship allowance, and when the day comes when he needs constant attention he does not receive constant attendance allowance.
The difference in the treatment of those two types of people has been causing us deep concern for many years. I accept right away that the Minister could not possibly today agree to an Amendment to give both types the same basic rate of industrial injuries benefit. Even if the right hon. Gentleman cannot accept the payment of unemployability supplement—though I hope that very soon such a proposition will be accepted—he could at least agree to the payment of constant attendance allowance. Those who struggle on year after year without a constant attendance allowance lead very narrow and miserable lives due to a lack of money. I am sure that the Minister himself has been listening carefully to this debate, and I ask him to give serious consideration to the question of paying them constant attendance allowance.
My hon. Friends have raised the problem of the wife who has had to give

up her job to look after her husband who needs constant attendance because he is suffering from emphysema, or bronchitis, or has suffered an injury at work or through a road accident, and the family income is thus reduced. The time comes when the man needs so much attention that the wife becomes overworked and overstrained.

In two cases in my constituency wives have died as a result of overwork, although their severely disabled husbands are still living. If the constant attendance allowance had been paid in those cases those wives would have been able to have a little assistance each day to help them in caring for their husbands. Even that little assistance, paid out of the constant attendance allowance, would have been a very great help. We are not asking for anything that cannot be granted.

My last point is the first to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred. She said that the whole principle of National Insurance was based on benefit for absence of earnings, or incapacity to work, while that of industrial injuries was based on benefit for loss of faculty. But in respect of what is the constant attendance allowance given? It is not for loss of faculty, because whether a sick man is in receipt of industrial injuries benefit or sickness benefit he may need the same constant attention. The principle which she felt to be almost insuperable does not affect the constant attendance allowance at all, although it may affect the basic rate. I hope that we will examine the whole scheme at some time.

We shall not press all three Amendments, but if the Minister is not able to tell us that he is willing to accept the Amendment that has been moved, we feel so strongly on the matter—because we have a great amount of experience of the hardships involved—that we will press it to a Division.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 195, Noes 257.

Division No. 39.]
AYES
[5.23 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Beaney, Alan


Ainsley, William
Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)
Bellenger, Rt. Hen. F. J.


Albu, Austen
Bacon, Miss Alice
Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Barnett, Guy
Benson, Sir George




Blackburn, F.
Hayman, F. H.
Pargiter, G. A.


Blyton, William
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Parker, John


Boardman, H.
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Parkin, B. T.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Pavitt, Laurence


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W.(Leics, S.W.)
Holman, Percy
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Holt, Arthur
Peart, Frederick


Bowles, Frank
Hooson, H. E.
Pentland, Norman


Boyden, James
Houghton, Douglas
Popplewell, Ernest


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Prentice, R. E.


Bradley, Tom
Hoy, James H.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Probert, Arthur


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Rankin, John


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hunter, A. E.
Reynolds, G. W.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Rhodes, H.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hynd, John (Atteroliffe)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Callaghan, James
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Robertson John (Paisley)


Chapman, Donald
Jeger, George
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)


Cliffe, Michael
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Ross, William


Collick, Percy
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Short, Edward


Crosland, Anthony




Crossman, R. H. S.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Skeffington, Arthur


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Darling, George
Kelley, Richard
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Kenyon, Clifford
Small, William


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
King, Dr. Horace
Spriggs, Leslie


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lawson, George
Steele, Thomas


Deer, George
Ledger, Ron
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Dempsey, James
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Stones, William


Diamond, John
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Dodds, Norman
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Swain, Thomas


Driberg, Tom
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Taverne, D.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Lipton, Marcus
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Loughlin, Charles
Thomas, Lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Edelman, Maurice
Lubbock, Eric
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Hess (Caerphilly)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
MacColl, James
Thornton, Ernest


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
McInnes, James
Wade, Donald


Evans, Albert
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Wainwright, Edwin


Fernyhough, E.
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Warbey, William


Finch, Harold
McLeavy, Frank
Weitzman, David


Fitch, Alan
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Fletcher, Eric
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Whitlock, William


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Manuel, Archie
Wilkins, W. A.


Forman, J. C.
Mapp, Charles
Willey, Frederick


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Marsh, Richard
Williams, L1. (Abertillery)


George, Lady MeganLloyd (Crmrthn)
Mason, Roy
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Ginsburg, David
Mayhew, Christopher
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mellish, R. J.
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Gourlay, Harry
Mendelson, J. J.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Greenwood, Anthony
Millan, Bruce
Winterbottom, R. E.


Grey, Charles
Mitchison, G. R.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Monslow, Walter
Woof, Robert


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Moody, A. S.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Gunter, Ray
Morris, John
Zilliacus, K.


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Neal, Harold



Hannan, William
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Harper, Joseph
Oram, A. E.
Mr. McCann and Mr. Redhead.


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Oswald, Thomas





NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Biggs-Davison, John
Burden, F. A.


Allason, James
Bingham, R. M.
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)


Arbuthnot, John
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)


Atkins, Humphrey
Bishop, F. P.
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Bossom, Hon. Clivs
Carr, Compton (Barons Court)


Barber, Anthony
Bourne-Arton, A.
Channon, H. P. G.


Barlow, Sir John
Box, Donald
Chichester-Clark, R.


Barter, John
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Clarke, Brig. Terence(Portsmth, W.)


Batsford, Brian
Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Cleaver, Leonard


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Braine, Bernard
Cooke, Robert


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Brewls, John
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.


Bell, Ronald
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Corfield, F. V.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Coulson, Michael


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Brooman-White, R.
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony


Berkeley, Humphry
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Bryan, Paul
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver


Bidgood, John C.
Buck, Antony
Cunningham, Knox


Biffen, John
Bullard, Denys
Curran, Charles







Dalkeith, Earl of
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Prior, J. M. L.


Dance, James
Kerans, Cdr, J. S.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Kershaw, Anthony
Pym, Francis


Doughty, Charles
Kimball, Marcus
Quenneli, Miss J. M.


Drayson, G. B.
Kirk, Peter
Ramsden, James


du Cann, Edward
Lagden, Godfrey
Rawlinson, Sir Peter


Eden, John
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rees, Hugh


Elliott, R. W. (Nwcastle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Leavey, J. A.
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Leburn, Gilmour
Ridsdale, Julian


Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Robertson, Sir D. (C'thn's &amp; S'th'ld)


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Lilley, P. J. P.
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.)


Farr, John
Lindsay, Sir Martin
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Fell, Anthony
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Finlay, Graeme
Litchfield, Capt. John
Russell, Ronald


Fisher, Nigel
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
St. Clair, M.


Forrest, George
Longbottom, Charles
Shaw, M.


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
Loveys, Walter H.
Shepherd, William


Gammans, Lady
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Skeet, T. H. H.


Gardner, Edward
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Smith, Dudley (Br'nt'f'd &amp; Chiswick)


Gibson-Watt, David
MacArthur, Ian
Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk Central)
McLaren, Martin
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Maclean, SirFitzroy (Bute &amp; N. Ayrs.)
Speir, Rupert


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Goodhart, Phillp
McMaster, Stanley R.
Stodart, J. A.


Goodhew, Victor
Macpherson, Rt. Hn. Niall (Dumfries)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Gough, Frederick
Maltland, Sir John
Storey, Sir Samuel


Gower, Raymond
Marshall, Douglas
Studholme, Sir Henry


Grant-Ferris, R.
Marten, Neil
Summers, Sir Spencer


Green, Alan
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Tapsell, Peter


Gresham Cooke, R.
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Gurden, Harold
Mawby, Ray
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.)


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Teeling, Sir William


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Mills, Stratton
Temple, John M.


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Miscampbell, Norman
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Montgomery, Fergus
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr)
Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)


Harvie Anderson, Miss
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin




Touche Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Hastings, Stephen
Morrison, John
Turner, Colin


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Hendry, Forbes
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Vane, W. M. F.


Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Vickers, Miss Joan


Hirst, Geoffrey
Orr, Capt. L. p. S.
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Hocking, Philip N.
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Walker, Peter


Holland, Philip
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Hollingworth, John
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Wall, Patrick


Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Ward, Dame Irene


Hopkins, Alan
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Webster, David


Hornby, R. P.
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
wells, John (Maidstone)


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Partridge, E,
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Percival, Ian
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Hughes-Young, Michael
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Iremonger, T. L.
Pilkington, Sir Richard
Woodhouse, C. M.


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pitman, Sir James
Woodnutt, Mark


James, David
Pitt, Dame Edith
Woollam, John


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Pott, Percivall
Worsley, Marcus


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch



Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Peel and Mr. Ian Fraser.

5.30 p.m.

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: Although we want to make progress and finish the Committee stage of the Bill by tomorrow night, there are one or two things which I wish to say about this Clause. It is an important Clause, divided

into five subsections. It is the paving-stone to the First Schedule, in which contributions are increased, and to the Second Schedule, in which National Insurance benefits are increased.
I wish, first, to mention the reference in subsection (5) to non-contributory pensions. I have referred to these pensions in relation to previous Measures and I


make no apology for doing so again. I think it deplorable that the noncontributory pensions have been left as they are for so long. When he was Minister of Pensions and National Insurance my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) brought the "over-70 pension", as it is commonly called, into line with modern conditions. The amount was raised to the then National Insurance pension of 26s. for a single person and 42s. for a married couple and the test of need was considerably relaxed.
There are still about 135,000 people, I believe, who are drawing this over-70 pension. For the most part they are persons who were excluded from the provisions of the National Insurance Scheme before 1948—traders, clergymen, widows of professional men, and a whole variety of people who were not allowed to be contributors under the provisions of the old-age pension and widows and orphan contributory pension legislation.
Nor were they allowed to become special voluntary contributors under the provisions of the 1938 scheme. Sometimes they call themselves the forgotten people and I think that they are overlooked when we are reviewing our social security benefits. I ask the Minister to give fresh consideration to their position in the light of present conditions.
We should note that under subsection (2) provision is made for a small increase—although it is an increase—in the quinquennial conditions to the flat-rate contributions provided for in the 1959 Act. I see that now we are beginning to call what used to be described as the "flat-rate contribution", the "ungraduated contribution". What with "ungraduated contributions" and "non-participating employment" we are getting into a prolix state in these days, and I, for the time being, at any rate, prefer to call it the flat-rate contribution.
This may not be an inappropriate moment at which mildly to question some of the articles of faith underlying this Clause. There is in it the "ark of the covenant" the contributory principle—"pay as you go". I sometimes wonder whether it is a good thing socially and economically to preserve the illusion of the contributory scheme or to dispel it. I was glad that at the end of his speech during the Second Reading debate the

Minister referred to the reality of the contributory scheme. He said:
I am equally sure that an increase of the main benefits of 10s. single and 16s. 6d. married is well worth the extra contributions which will have to be paid. Contributors will not grudge the retirement pensioner the increase for which he no longer contributes, for they recognise that, while their contributions pay for the retirement pensions of others, the day will come when they, too, will have retired and the contributions of those who are still working will pay for their retirement pensions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th January, 1963; Vol. 670, c. 609.]
That is the reality of the matter. These contributions are to pay for the benefits of others and, therefore, we must realise that National Insurance contributions are a form of taxation. I am not objecting to contributions on those grounds. I have never used the term "poll tax" because I associate that with a subject people. I do not regard contributors to the National Insurance Scheme as a subject people because they prefer it that way and I believe would resist any attempt to turn it into a non-contributory scheme.
Of course, we make the benefits dependent on the payment of this form of taxation. It is a pity that we cannot apply that principle to the payment of other forms of taxation. Suppose that people in arrears with their Income Tax were denied some of the benefits of citizenship until they had paid up. Or that when they came to retire they were told that there were certain impositions which had to be placed upon them because they had not paid the full amount of their taxes 25 years before. Some of the back-duty cases which now occupy the time of the Inland Revenue, involving arrears going back 10 or 20 years, might be settled more quickly and speedily were there the same conditions attached to the failure to pay taxes as to National Insurance contributions. But only in the sphere of these contributions is there a direct link between payment and benefit.
Without any economic justification, without any question of equity, without any doctrine of relative ability to pay, we must look at the contributions in the Schedules governed by Clause 1. They have nothing to do with the rights of individuals to benefit. It is quite arbitrary to say what proportion of the cost should be borne on contributions either by employees or employers or by the Exchequer itself. It is all a matter of psychology, philosophy and judgment,


economic needs, and social policy. I am questioning a few of the articles of faith, a few of the assumptions underlying our habits of thinking about the National Insurance Scheme. This, for a brief moment, seems a suitable oportunity to do it.
Mention of economics in this connection naturally raises the question whether we should increase contributions at this time in order to raise benefits. The total cost of the proposals is something over £200 million. Flat-rate contributions are to be increased to provide £130 million and graduated contributions to provide another £48 million. So nearly £180 million will come out of the increased contributions and the Exchequer will find the rest. The Exchequer is getting off lightly in this exercise.
Suggestions have been made that additional contributions should be levied neither on workers nor employers in areas smitten by severe unemployment. The economic argument is that those areas need boosting, not deflating, therefore they should be excused increased contributions. That would provide an additional incentive to new industries to go to the areas which were increased-contribution-free. All sorts of unorthodox ideas are being canvassed. There is no principle of our social or economic policy which is not now being questioned. We have suggestions for differential taxes and special inducements for encouraging the expansion of industry in areas which are now slack.
I do not know what J. M. Keynes would say in this situation. He probably would say that it seems rather odd that when trying to boost purchasing power we should increase contributions over the widest possible field and, therefore, however slightly, reduce the means of all the contributors. I suppose that the economic sense of the present situation would be that by a combination of borrowing and the restoration of concessions given in the taxation on higher incomes we should provide the extra benefits and not have additional contributions at all in present circumstances.
That may not be the politics of the matter. It would certainly not be the Conservative politics of the matter. We are asked in Clause 1 to go on in the old sweet way—if we increase benefits

we increase contributions. Whenever we ask for higher benefits—and we shall hear more of this later—the Minister says that it will cost so much and mean so much on the contributions of the workers and the employers. It does not necessarily mean anything of the sort; it is only that we are doing it this way. We can change it whenever we think that the conditions would justify doing so. We have made this scheme what it is, but times are changing and we can change, too.
I see in the Report of the Government Actuary that even those fine calculations are based on certain arbitrary assumptions. The Government have instructed the Actuary as to the basis on which he is to make his calculation of unemployment. He has had instructions on the scale on which he is to assume that earnings will rise and he has been instructed as to the numbers of persons he is to assume will be contracted out of the graduated scheme. Talk about going into four places of decimals with impure chemicals! This is a classic instance. The unemployment ratio may be higher or lower than was estimated or more people may contract out. All these figures will be shown to be wrong before very long.
With that heterodox intervention on Clause 1, I hope that we shall not pass it thinking that everything goes on just as the Tories have made it. There are other ways of doing it and later in the debate we may make some suggestions.

5.45 p.m.

The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Niall Macpherson): I am not quite certain to what extent the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) expects me to reply to the points that he has raised. On the point about noncontributory pensions, I think that he overrates the numbers which are at present current. There are 114,000 current at present. What has to be remembered is that the capital tests were very much higher than they are for National Assistance; and, of those 114,000 about 89,000 are also receiving National Assistance. Presumably, they would be little, if any, better off if, instead of receiving National Assistance, they were to receive non-contributory pensions equivalent to the full National Insurance rates.
In addition, there are 10,000 in hospital. They are receiving what I think is known as the "pocket money" rate of benefit. That leaves only quite a small number, and of them most have a certain amount of capital. I am told that the single pensioner can have nearly £1,500 capital before the non-contributory pension would be extinguished. It is, of course, subject to a means test. The married pensioner can have £2,990 before his pension is extinguished.
It would be difficult to say on grounds of hardship that it would be right to cut right across the principle that has been established for, although the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) raised the rate for the non-contributory old-age pension to the same rate as the insurance pension, the payments were not made out of the Insurance Fund. The payments are made through the National Assistance Board, so the Board remains very closely in touch with these people to see if they have any particular needs which have to be met.
The point about the quinquennial increase is simple. For the self-employed and those paying contracted-out contributions there is a small increase in the first quinquennium of 1d. to match the increased contributions of those who earn over £15 a week and who will be paying graduated contributions on between £15 and £18. It was not felt that it would be right to let off the self-employed and the contracted-out altogether from those increases.
I do not want to go into a long dissertation on the hon. Member's more general remarks, but I think that there is a very strong difference between the contributions paid under the National Insurance Acts and taxation. Taxation is surely a payment exacted by the State for the general purposes of the State, whereas the contribution is the means of ensuring the provision of benefits in certain contingencies for the contributor. There is a very marked difference between the two. I think it is worth while adhering to that principle.

Mr. George Lawson: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that while this is the main part of the flat-rate system, it does not apply to the graduated system?

Mr. Macpherson: It certainly does, because the contingency insured against is that on a man's reaching retirement, or on his wife's reaching retirement, the graduated pension is drawn. It is perfectly straightforward.

Miss Herbison: Is it as straightforward as the Minister suggests? Is not part of the graduated contribution which the workers at present make being taken to cover the pensions for the old people who are already pensioners? If this were not the case, when the people who are working at present and paying their graduated contributions came to retire they would have a much bigger supplemental pension added. Is not this the case?

Mr. Macpherson: The hon. Lady knows very well that there was, at any rate, a dual purpose in establishing the graduated scheme. One was that those people who were earning at more than a certain level should contribute to the general Fund and ease the burden of those earning below that level. The other was that they should be able to add to their retirement pensions.
On the economic argument that the scheme should be used as a regulator, one of the principles of a regulator is that it should be capable of being brought into effect quickly. As regards the changes in the National Insurance Scheme, we are bringing them in for pensions in 18 weeks on this occasion. The printing of about 250 million stamps and the alteration of about 8 million books cannot be done very quickly. Therefore, it is not very suitable as an economic regulator. Nor is it a very good idea to vary contributions regionally, because the scheme is based on the principle of equal benefits in return for equal contributions, or, at any rate, on the graduated side, contributions based on the principle of equality. I shall not say any more on this. I hope that I have dealt with the points raised by the hon. Member for Sowerby.

Dr. Horace King: I do not propose to keep the Committee for more than one minute, but the point raised about non-contributory pensions is important enough to justify lingering over it for another minute.
The Minister has said that many non-contributory pensioners are looked after


by National Assistance. Everybody must agree that there is a difference between aid from National Assistance and aid as of right. I hope that the time will soon come when we shall breach the principle which made sense in 1946, because we were establishing a new National Insurance Scheme in which those who had not made contributions to it should not get the full benefits, but the number is now diminishing. When we increased contributions those who paid lesser contributions got the full benefits of any new increase in pensions.
It is about time that we brought the people who my hon. Friend the Member people whom my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) described as the forgotten people of England—the non-contributory pensioners, only about 100,000 of them—into the full benefits of the scheme.

Mr. John Eden: The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) rather overstressed the case. I agree that these forgotten people feel very strongly and believe that they have a good deal of justification for their feelings. Their feelings are chiefly occasioned by their being required to have resort to National Assistance for what they feel they should be getting, as the hon. Gentleman put it, as of right through National Insurance.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be the first to admit that, even if they had been going to National Insurance and, indeed, had contributed as much as it was possible for them to do so, they would still be drawing a very substantial part of their pension in what could only be termed assistance form, coming directly from the State and not financed by contributions. It is academic in these days to discuss exactly what is the label attached to the money which is used to help people in need.
I live very closely with this problem in my constituency. I have been trying very hard to get away from any sort of stigma being attached to National Assistance, because in Bournemouth there are many elderly people in this category who are desperately anxious for some form of help, but who will not, I recognise, for their own personal reasons, turn to the Assistance Board.
I place a different emphasis on this problem from that placed by the hon. Member for Itchen, in that I urge them continually to go to the Assistance Board for the assistance they require and deserve and for which provision is made by the State. Any contribution we can make to persuading these people to take up this form of monetary help will be an effort well spent.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(AMENDMENTS OF NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT 1946.)

Mr. Houghton: I beg to move, in page 2, line 26, to leave out "26 shillings" and to insert "82 shillings and sixpence".

The Temporary Chairman (Sir James Duncan): It might be for the convenience of the Committee if, with this Amendment, we discuss the Amendment in page 2, line 27, leave out paragraph (b).

Mr. Houghton: Yes. That will be convenient, Sir James.
Clause 2 proposes to modify the earnings rule for widowed mothers. It provides, broadly, that the earnings rule shall not operate to reduce her own pension below 26s. The Amendment proposes that the earnings rule shall not operate to reduce her pension below what she is getting now, which is 82s. 6d. The Amendment would considerably narrow the scope of erosion of the widows' pension by the operation of the earnings rule. I understood that under the rules of order within the Long Title we could not move an Amendment to abolish the earnings rule entirely for widowed mothers. Since the Bill modifies the existing earnings rule in this connection, we propose to modify it fess than the Minister does.
I have a very clear recollection of a long day on Friday, 25th January, on a Private Member's Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton). His Bill dealt with two points only. One was the earnings rule for widows. The Clause relates only to widowed mothers. We went over the whole of the ground of the earnings rule, its effect on widows and widowed


mothers, and the difficulty which the Minister urged of differentiating between the earnings rule for widows and that for retirement pensioners.
In view of the long debate we had on 25th January, when all the arguments were deployed, mostly in favour of my hon. Friend's Bill, from both sides of the House of Commons, there is little purpose in taking very long in Committee on this Bill going over much of the ground again. However, it is one of the encouraging features of our debates in the House of Commons these days that criticism of the Government comes from both sides. It certainly did on 25th January. If the debate on this Clause goes on very long, I am sure that that will happen again. I see on the Conservative benches some hon. Members who are as critical of the operation of the earnings rule for widowed mothers as we on this side of the Committee are.
That is all I will say. We are "agin" it. We have argued against retaining the earnings rule for widowed mothers. We realise that it has an effect only on a limited number of widowed mothers and we realise that it does not get to the root of the problem of adequate provision for widowed mothers. Many widowed mothers cannot go out to earn, anyway, so they are not affected by the earnings rule. They want pensions, and allowances for children, to enable them to carry on under reasonable conditions and not be forced out to work.
The Amendment deals with the narrow point of the earnings rule. However short or long the debate on it may be, I shall ask my hon. Friends, in due course, to register their discontent with the retention of the earnings rule for widowed mothers by voting in favour of the Amendment.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. J. T. Price: I support the Amendment not only because I wish to be consistent with what I have said previously on this topic, but also because it is a matter of common justice that the House of Commons should take another serious look at the problems which have been expressed so lucidly by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton).
We are all aware that widowed mothers who qualify for the widowed mothers' allowance, because they have children of school age and so on, may be bereaved

and left in quite different circumstances according to the status they occupied before they lost their husbands. There are many cases I could cite, but I do not wish to weary the Committee. For example, a widowed mother who has been reasonably well provided for during the lifetime of her husband may be saddled not only with the care, protection and sustenance of young children, but also with a heavy debt, including perhaps a mortgage on her home.
It is particularly in this type of case that sheer economic circumstances may compel the widow to go out to work where otherwise she would have preferred to have stayed at home to look after the children. The sheer pressure of economic circumstances undoubtedly force many women with children—women who would be better off if they stayed at home—to have to go out to work. Here we come up against the essential weaknesses of National Insurance for the citizen in this respect. Although the widowed mother having lost the breadwinner may be compelled to continue to meet heavy liabilities—debts, mortgage and good partly paid for—she finds that, whatever her gross income might be on going out to work, she is treated as a single person, from the taxation point of view.
I do not wish to transgress the rules of order if I can possibly avoid it, but it must be realised that this whole question is linked with our taxation system. If the widowed mother takes the place of the breadwinner, although she may have liabilities which force her to go out to work, she is treated as a single person for the purposes of taxation. She does not receive the dual allowance which a married couple normally enjoy and, faced with heavy liabilities, she is also faced with a less generous allowance when it comes to taxation.
Until we can in some way recondition or adjust our taxation system to allow a person who is the sole supporter of the home to be treated in the same way for taxation purposes as if that person were married, then we must give special consideration in the question of National Insurance benefits. Although the Minister and his colleagues may consider that we have been rather drastic in attempting to remove the earnings embargo altogether, in the way the Amendment suggests, I support the Amendment because it is only by a dramatic step


of this kind that we can face the realities of the situation and the circumstances which exist in the homes of so many of these people.
The Amendment raises a substantial point on which many hon. Members feel deeply. It is not fair to treat a widowed mother who, by sheer circumstance, is forced to go out to work to augment the family income in—perhaps "ruthless" is too harsh a word—a severe way when she earns a wage or salary similar to that of the breadwinner who previously supported the family. I hope that the Minister will not dismiss the arguments which have been adduced in support of the Amendment with the sort of Departmental jargon that is dished up to him by the civil servants, for whom I have the greatest respect. Unfortunately we know that these matters too often become almost matters of doctrine to a lot of people who sit in offices and do not know how these people live.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Has not my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) done just that himself in the past?

Mr. Price: Nevertheless, I sincerely hold these views and I express them in my own words. I do not come here with "flogged-up" Departmental briefs. My usefulness in the House of Commons is achieved only by saying what I believe to be true. If more hon. Members did that—and I am not claiming any special virtue for doing it—we should get a much more lively atmosphere in our debates than we get from the turgid orations flogged up in the midnight oil, orations which do not impress anyone—and that goes for both sides of the Committee.

Mr. N. Macpherson: I do not want to curtail the debate in any way and I certainly do not want to give voice to any turgid oration at this point, but it is as well to know what we are talking and voting about, if the Committee decides to divide on this subject.
The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) expressed the desire to vote against the earnings rule, as I understand it, but the Committee may find it

a little difficult to do so since the hon. Member for Sowerby is proposing to retain a part of it. I strongly suspect he has done this inadvertently and that he intended to insert 97s. 6d. and not 82s. 6d., which would have had the effect of getting rid of the earnings rule for the widowed mother's allowance. However, this Amendment coupled with the next one has the curious effect of not merely abolishing the earnings rule for the greater part of the widowed mother's allowance but of transferring it to the allowances for the second and subsequent children. I do not think that that is what the hon. Member intended to do. If hon. Members opposite want to press this now they would be pressing a very odd Amendment indeed and not, I think, one which the sponsors really intended.

Dr. King: The Minister must think the Committee a little naive if he believes that we suspect that he is in danger of putting into operation all the Amendments we intend to move to the Clause. My hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) explained that we could not abolish the earnings rule, and I now wish to stand the Minister's argument on its head.
The simple fact is that, regarding the earnings rule, the Government have run away from principles which were established years ago. They have run away in two ways. Firstly, we have steadily increased the amount we allow a widowed mother to earn. The only question dividing the Committee is not one of principle but of how far the disallowance takes place. We would make it absolute while the Minister fixes it at a certain figure. The significant feature of this debate is that the fundamental principle of the earnings rule has gone.
What we are arguing about now is not whether, if a widow earns more than a certain amount, she should throw away her pension altogether because the Government are conceding the absolute right of the widowed mother, whatever her earnings, to 26s. What is between us now is not the complete abolition of the earnings rule—not the old principle which obtained up to the time of the Bill—but the difference between 26s. a week which the Government are prepared for all widowed mothers to keep and the figure which we are proposing in the Amendment.
We shall later be dealing with many of the other problems of widows. Here we are dealing with those widows who help themselves, and who can help themselves. Many widows cannot do so, either because they are physically incapable, or because of family ties, and so on. This Amendment would not benefit them at all, but as long as any vestige remains of the earnings rule, as long as the amount the widowed mother keeps as of right, whatever her earnings, is as small as this, we are penalising those widowed mothers who go out to supplement their pensions in order to help keep their families in the condition they would have hoped to have kept them but for bereavement. I hope that the Minister will try to defend this 26s.

Mr. Charles Curran: I support the Amendment. First, I will take a weight off the minds of my right hon. Friend and the Parliamentary Secretary by saying that I shall not repeat the well-used arguments about the earnings rule. I have a great deal of sympathy for my right hon. Friend and the Parliamentary Secretary—they seem to be sitting there like a couple of programme girls at Drury Lane listening to the thousandth performance of "My Fair Lady"—they know exactly what Eliza will say—and I shall not prompt them, or give them further inklings of the words that are about to come.
The purpose of supporting the Amendment is not to engage in an argument about principles. As the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) quite accurately said, we have already conceded the principle. What we are now doing, and what I suggest we shall continue to do if we support the Amendment, is to further the process of eroding the earnings rule. I should like to see the rule removed from the whole structure of pensions, whether for widows or for retired persons; but to discuss that now would be to go far beyond the range of this debate.
The position we have now apparently reached about the rule is that the Government, for a variety of reasons—some good and some, I think, very defective—are not prepared openly to cut its throat but are prepared to keep on squeezing its windpipe by lifting the level at which it operates. That probably suits us just as well. We may not be able to get a

formal sentence of death passed on the rule unless we are prepared to do something which I suppose is a long way off—to undertake a radical overhaul of the basic assumptions of the Welfare State. I suppose that until then we cannot eradicate the rule, but what we can do, and what I hope we shall continue to do—as I certainly shall—is to continue to lift the ceiling so that if we are not killing the rule we are engaging in its euthanasia. That, I think, is the purpose of the Amendment. I hope that we can lift the point at which the rule operates to a level at which it does not trouble anybody except the kind of widows who earn their living by buying and selling yachts.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. B. T. Parkin: If I undertake not to discuss the earnings rule in general, I hope that the Minister will undertake not to advance any of the arguments against the rule in general which do not apply in this case. It is extremely important that we should now be able to discuss this matter in isolation, because none of the arguments, good or bad, about the rule in general apply here. It may be right to say that we should not abolish the earnings rule for retirement in general, either because we want to keep people in the labour market or want to take them off the labour market, encourage them to do some work or discourage them from doing so, but none of those things applies here. It may be possible to say, "If you alter the earnings rule, you do not know what avalanche of fresh applications will be made, because people will all be able to make a fresh decision."
No widowed mother makes the decision whether she wants to be a widowed mother or not. She is not in the same category as those who have to decide whether or not to retire. The widowed mother has undergone a calamity personal to her alone, a calamity for which we were, perhaps, rather presumptuous to allow in a contributory scheme at all. It might have been better to have said, "We shall have a very generous system of grants under National Assistance, because we cannot evaluate this kind of calamity financially."
What do we want to do for the widowed mother? Surely, we want to do what she would wish to do for herself, and that is to try to secure for the children, or rescue for the children, such


sense of security as she can. That is the main thing—to get the feeling in the family that the roof over its head, whatever it is, will stay there. It does not matter whether the roof is cheap or expensive; it represents to those children at that time a family security.
The mother's own tendency, of course, would be to say, "I want to be at home and look after the children. I do not want to have to go out to work," but that decision depends on the circumstances at the time. It is she who has to decide whether, on balance, it is necessary to do something to keep that roof over the family's head, or whether the second girl should leave school at 15 instead of staying on at the secondary school—"and what about that school trip to Switzerland the girl was expecting to go on? It would cost a lot of money—dare we? What will be the psychological effect on the child? "Only the mother herself can, on balance, judge whether she should go to work or stay at home, always having in mind this necessity to keep background security, to continue education plans already laid down, until the family gets over the calamity as much as it can.
There is, therefore, the strongest possible reason, for, as the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran) has been urging, for finding some device—and I think that this is a good device—for forgetting this unfortunate provision in the Act, and letting it be understood that there is to be no question but that the mother's decision in relation to the situation shall be hers alone. She should certainly not be taxed, or have her pension reduced because, in any case, she will want to go out only to earn the amount necessary to secure these particular elements in the background security of the children. The more she can stay at home the better. In other words, we want her to have the maximum freedom for those few years.
I therefore hope that the Minister can accept the Amendment. I see no reason why he should not be able to agree with the arguments put forward, and it is quite inappropriate for him to make remarks about the Amendment's consequential effects, and so on. If he wants to find a way, he can—let him do so.

Mr. Donald Wade: In view of the Minister's observations, it would be good to have a little guidance. I have spoken on other occasions in favour of the abolition of the earnings rule, and I do not propose to repeat my arguments. I would be in favour of raising the level of earnings, as an alternative to abolition, and I am very willing to support the Amendment that seeks to substitute 82s. 6d. for 26s.
I understand the Minister to have said that if both Amendments were accepted they would create anomalies. He drew attention in particular to the Amendment to leave out paragraph (b). Unless other arguments are deployed, I shall feel disinclined to support that Amendment, but I understood that these two Amendments were only being discussed together and that if there is to be a vote it will be on the first Amendment. It would be helpful if we could have that point clarified. I repeat that I am prepared to support the first Amendment.

Mr. Frederick Gough: I am glad of the opportunity to speak for the purpose of the record. I would not like people to think that I bad either just come straight into the Chamber, because as the Committee knows I have been sitting here diligently the whole time, or, secondly, that I was asleep. I was wide awake, but the point earlier was that the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) had been trying very hard to coax some of us into the Lobby with him, and he must have succeeded with my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran).
I am sure, however, that the hon. Member for Sowerby would be the first to say that he would never do that by false pretences. He was trying to get us into the Division Lobby with him to do away with the earnings rule. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions pointed out the anomalies in his argument, and that point has also been put forward by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade). I think that what the hon. Member for Sowerby was asking us to do was to indulge in a Dutch auction. He asks us to substitute 82s. 6d. for 26s. Why should it not go up to half that or to 62s.?

Mr. Curran: Or twice as much.

Mr. Gough: The hon. Member for Sowerby referred to the interesting debate last Friday week on the Widows' Pensions Bill introduced by the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton). I spoke very much in favour of that Measure although I did not like the Bill itself and I asked my right hon. Friend if he would look into the matter. I trust my right hon. Friend. I think that he is looking into it. Therefore, in view of these anomalies, I have reluctantly to say to the hon. Member for Sowerby that I doubt whether he will coax me into his Division Lobby.

Mr. James Dempsey: Any remarks that I make will be addressed to the second Amendment which is the important one under discussion. I have no doubt that that will be the one that will be decided in the Division Lobby.
We are inclined to overlook the importance of the widowed mother to the country in general. Of all sections of National Insurance beneficiaries widowed mothers are a category who suffer most unfairly because of the application of the earnings rule. If we ask how a mother becomes widowed we are bound to realise that it is due to circumstances beyond her control. When she is a widow and is left with a small family to rear that is the time when she needs help.
When we discuss pensions for the over-seventies we are reminded time and again that they are receiving something towards which they make no contribution, but in this case the widowed mother's allowance is paid in lieu of insurance. It is not charity. The lady concerned does not receive benevolence from the Ministry. Her husband has paid for the pension. He has made contributions and has sacrificed to try and protect his wife and children in days of economic adversity. As soon as those days come and the mother discovers that it is not possible to rear the family on the basis of State benefits and she elects to go to work, the hardships of the earnings rule are applied to her.
Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee could quote case after case of the operation of this hardship. I know of a woman who studied nursing and took a health visitor's course, but when she received her lint salary she discovered that the widowed mother's

allowance was axed to the very limit. This was her reward for hard work and self-sacrifice in seeing that her little family was reared in the proper fashion. This is not the way to treat people who have suffered an almost mortal blow from the loss of a dear husband.
It seems to me, therefore, that the Minister might have shown a little sympathy. The Amendment is a step in the right direction. It will enable the widowed mother to earn not 26s. but 82s. 6d. This would be a march forward in the administration of benefits. The Minister, therefore, should give further consideration to the Amendment. Like other hon. Members, I know that after arguments have been adumbrated in an effort to impress upon the Minister that there are other approaches to problems such as these, and that other minds should be brought to bear upon them, and then he says quite categorically according to his brief that the proposition in the Bill must stay and is final, it is most discouraging to those of us whose only interest is to advocate the cause of the widowed mother who is being most unfairly treated at present.

Mr. Macpherson: That is not at all what I said. I did not say that the proposition in the Bill was there to stay but that the proposition in the Amendment was not the proposition which the sponsors of the Amendment thought it was.

Mr. Dempsey: If the right hon. Gentleman did not say that the proposition was there to stay, I take it that he will review it in an upward direction. That is the logic of his remarks, and I am glad to see that at last we have made an impression upon him. The right hon. Gentleman, representing a Scottish constituency, should be amenable to reason, as we Scotsmen always are.
A woman who makes such tremendous sacrifices even late in life to secure a job with a reasonable income should be more sympathetically treated than she will be according to the wording of the Bill. All I ask of the Minister is that he should review this proposal even at this late hour and revise it in an upward direction and ensure that widowed mothers have a better deal after we have passed the Bill than they obviously are about to receive according to its present provisions.
There is nothing unreasonable about this. It is perfectly fair and understandable and is nothing more than an appraisal of the plight of the widowed mother. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will consider the words of hon. Members on this side of the Committee and of the hon. Member for Uxbridge. I hope that these words will smooth away the stone of resistance which the Minister's wrinkled forehead at this moment suggests exists and that he will come to the conclusion that the widowed mother is entitled to much more than 26s.

Mr. Curran: On a point of order. In view of the doubts which are being cast on whether the Amendment will do what its supporters believe it to do, may I ask Sir James, whether you are prepared to accept from me a manuscript Amendment which would have the effect of taking out the words, "26 shillings" in the Clause and substituting" £26"?

The Temporary Chairman: No, I am not in a position to accept such an Amendment.

Mr. Wainwright: On a point of order, Sir James. May I ask for your guidance? I am a little worried by interjections of that kind. Was the hon. Gentleman right in putting forward an Amendment which included his own retirement?

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member for Uxbridge raised a point of order with me and asked if I would accept a manuscript Amendment. I think that that is the only way in which he could have raised the point. I took what he said in that sense, and that is how I dealt with it.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. T. Brown: The Minister stressed the point of principle in the application of the earnings rule. It never was a principle. It was a piece of administration performed by the Department—I say this quite frankly—to rob the widowed mothers of their rightful pension. It was a mechanism to make it difficult for the widowed mother to live. Her life was made difficult as a consequence. Why does a widowed mother go out to work to earn? She is forced by her circumstances to do so because the State does not make provision for her, for her family or for the things to which she is entitled.

Yet, as soon as she goes out to work, the State says, "If you earn so much, you will receive only so much pension less".
If the earnings rule was based on principle, as the Minister tried to suggest in his short intervention, why is it not applied to other pensioners? What about judges when they retire from their positions? What about clergymen? What about policemen? I say this without any malice. When someone in one of the upper professional classes finishes his term according to age, he receives a pension, and rightly so. The ordinary widowed mother who works is entitled to her pension, too. She goes out to work for one purpose only, in order to maintain herself and her family, yet she is penalised by legislation passed by the House of Commons. It has always been wrong. It has never been popular. Every widowed mother has a right to feel aggrieved at the unfairness of the application of the earnings rule.
By the Amendment we seek to bring the widowed mother's pension up to the standard which she ought to have received right from the date of the death of her husband. Is there anything wrong in that? Why cannot the Minister accept it? He should remember that the widowed mother or her husband paid National Insurance contributions. She receives a pension by the right established as a result of her contributions or her husband's contributions. The family will pay contributions and the family's family will pay contributions. Yet the Department has the audacity to say that the principle of the earnings rule must still be applied. This is all wrong Let us have fair play all round and let us do our best to establish ordinary justice, which is what the Amendment is designed to do. We do not seek to penalise anyone.
The widowed mother has never been fairly dealt with hitherto. She has never had fair play, whatever may be said to the contrary. We seek to give her a little fair play. I do not stress the economic side too much, but no widowed mother with children has an easy time. I was left without a mother when I was 10, and I know something of these family problems and of the hardships which are endured.
I stress again, as I always have, that if the earnings rule is a matter of principle—this to be the argument which


the Minister and his Department cling like leeches—it should be applied 100 per cent. Let the Minister accept the Amendment and restore the widowed mother to the rightful place which has been denied to her since the death of her husband.
I know that there is an age limit, but experience has taught us that the age limit was imposed in order to force those below it out into the labour market. This also is wrong. If other people can have their pensions without deduction—and good luck to them—let us give a little more to the widowed mother who has a family to bring up. Let us not force her through sheer economic circumstances to go out to work and then penalise her for doing so.
There is nothing wrong with the Amendment. It should have been incorporated in the first. National Insurance Act. So long as it remains outside the National Insurance scheme, so long will people grumble about the unfair treatment which they receive from the Government. whichever political philosophy they embrace. Let us give to the widowed mother what she is entitled to, what she has paid for, what the family and their families will continue to pay for. We are not asking for the taxpayers' money to be given. We are asking that something should be given from the insured contributors to the National Insurance Scheme. The Amendment should have been incorporated in the Act many years ago, and I ask the Minister to accept it now.

Mr. Ede: I add my plea to that made by so many hon. Members on both sides. On 25th January, I respected the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Gough) when he explained to the House that he had been brought up by a widowed mother, with, I understand, a brother, and told us from his personal recollection of the bravery of a woman who takes that job on.
In my experience of talking with ordinary people, whether they be widows or not, whenever this topic comes up we see the eternal conflict between official law and natural justice. The women feel that in this matter they do not receive natural justice. That is the main grievance. I have never known anyone who, after hearing the story of such women as those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North

(Mr. Parkin), does not feel that the present rule is an act of obvious injustice in a social system which, we believe, should afford natural social justice to those who have been visited by undeserved hardship. There is many a child whose life is frustrated broadly for the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North and who suffers a continuous disability and feeling of inferiority in the social circumstances in which it lives.
I had to plead many years ago for the right of a pensioned policeman to get a job as a school attendance officer because, it was said, he already had a pension. My hon. Friend referred to teachers about whom, if they only keep away from the schools, no question is asked. The service which a good mother renders to her family cannot be assessed on any basis of pounds, shillings and pence. If she devotes her life to giving her children the start in life which she believes they would have had if their father had survived, she is rendering a service to the State which certainly no man could render. She feels, and all her neighbours feel, that she is suffering a grave injustice. We should remove the inherent criticism in every sympathetic heart which the continuance of this earnings rule creates.
I urge the Minister to do something to reconcile law and justice, for, while this rule is in being, the fundamental basis of the State is in jeopardy. One day we may be surprised by a Minister who gets into a sympathetic mood and insists on opening what he may very well regard as the floodgates which he has so long kept closed.

Mr. Cyril Bence: I am sure that there are hon. Members on both sides—I admit that there are not many on the benches opposite—who feel that the system under which a widow with children is subject to the earnings rule should be discontinued. My hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) put the point very well.
The woman who is left with a growing family of three, four or five children is in great difficulties. She and her husband may have had a great sense of civic responsibility and civic pride and were keen on the education of their children. People of my generation


realise the terrific sacrifices and ambitions of parents in ensuring that their children have a good education. Those in our strata of society know the terrible tragedy of a woman of 30 or 40 years of age with perhaps a boy of 10 or 14 who has ambitions for him to go to grammar school or to a technological college. When the breadwinner has gone she has the agonising problem of how to continue her child's education. I hope that the Minister will bear this point in mind.
Most of us have heard criticism from many quarters, especially from widows—I have had it put to me—that widows with children who get allowances for the children, even if they go out to work to support those children in order to continue their education and maintain their domestic standards, suffer a reduction in their pension if their earnings go above a certain figure. A widowed mother may have neighbours and, indeed, relatives among whom there are husband with wives working but who still receive family allowances—I know that the family allowances are treated as domestic income and that taxation takes a large percentage of the allowance back—but she suffers a reduction in her pension, something that is hers by right because of her husband's contributions, because she goes out to work in order to augment the family income.
This is a shocking state of affairs. I can never understand how it has come about. We are concerned with someone who has had visited on her the worst tragedy, in my view, that any household could suffer. It is a tragedy for the children and for the mother when they lose a good artisan type of father. Nothing worse could happen to the mother than to lose the breadwinner of the household.
6.45 p.m.
I have always thought it shocking that the pensions scheme should be drawn in such a way that the widow has her State pension reduced because her earnings go above a certain level, whereas the family allowances of a working man whose income increases are not reduced. I do not like that principle.

Mr. Curran: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says, but he should tell us that this was something that the

Labour Government created. Can he say why the Labour Government created it?

Mr. Bence: I am not one of those who believes that Governments have all the wisdom of the ages conferred upon them for their period of office. I have always said that I thought that this principle was a mistake. I hope that I do not go through life blindly. Even if I did something which turned out to be wrong, I would admit it. I was trained as an engineer. If I made a mechanism which did not work, I would say that it was no good.
I have always thought that this earnings rule was a mistake, and I still believe that it was a mistake. I have no doubt that when it was introduced by the Labour Government many speeches of the sort that we are making today were made from the Opposition benches. I have not looked up HANSARD, but——

Mr. Ellis Smith: It was said fifteen years ago.

Mr. Bence: When this discussion is finished, I will check in HANSARD.

Mr. William Ross: I will save my hon. Friend a little trouble. On 23rd November, 1948, one back bench Member—he did not call himself a Tory then; he was a National Liberal—suggested to the Labour Minister that he should wipe out the earnings rule in respect of widowed mothers and that the severity of their loss was such that he should not worry about £2 or £3 million. It was the Minister himself.

Mr. Bence: That only goes to show what intuition is. I am shocked that the Minister should not have been ready to concede the Amendment before one of his fellow countrymen, with a tremendous capacity for research and insight into what has happened in the past, caught him right behind the wicket. I do not know what to say. This has floored me probably to a greater extent than the Minister. What he will do about it, I do not know. He may tender his resignation. It is shocking that my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) should have been able to throw this "bomb" into the Committee and put the Minister in an invidious position. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will save him from the


awful task of having to defend something in which he does not believe and in which he has never believed. Whether he will cross the Floor, I do not know, but I have no doubt that he will forthwith rise and accept the Amendment.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: If the Minister could tell us exactly how much the Amendment would cost the Treasury, we might be able the better to assess whether he was genuine when he spoke in 1948. I should not like to think that he was more mean today then he was in those days or that he was now less liberal, but I shall carry away that impression unless he is prepared to give me that information and to accept our Amendment.

Mr. M. Lipton: It may assist my hon. Friend if I tell him that in the debate on the same point on 25th January this year, the Minister stated that the total additional cost of abolishing the earnings rule for widowed mothers would be £1½ million.

Mr. Fernyhough: When we think of the money that the Government Front Bench have thrown down the drain, of the hundreds of millions of pounds which they have wasted, and yet they come time after time without any feeling of guilt to defend their mistakes, and here we have a matter of £1½ million—that is all that it would cost the Government—and we know what it would mean to the tens of thousands of widows involved, it seems that all our priorities are completely askew.
Members of my family have gone through this experience. Let me give some illustrations. The miner's wife seldom goes out to work, largely because of the shift system and the hours. If, however, a miner dies and children are left, the widow has to go out. She does not want to go out, because most of these people appreciate that they can do most good and give the best blessing to their children by being at home when they come back from school and by being there to tuck them in.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) made clear, many of the people affected are victims of circumstances and of fate. They did not make the decision themselves. Many of them never went out to work before, and they would not be doing so now unless economic necessity compelled them. Even with what they get

from the State plus what they earn, the 'fact that there is not a man's wages coming in means that they have a hard and difficult struggle. If we believe that it is difficult enough for a mother and father together to bring up children, we can appreciate how much greater is the struggle of the woman who is left to do it on her own.
The Minister can show that he has now, in 1963, got back to where he started in 1948, when the earlier Bill was going through the House. He could bring great relief to thousands of deserving people. He could give them greater happiness and relieve them of some of the economic difficulties which face them. His hon. Friends behind him would troop faithfully after him if he gave the word. There is no question of a revolt against the Minister if he gives away this £1½ million if he is determined that we should have it.
If the Minister does not grant our case, we must look upon him, not as a big man, but as a small man, because when he did not have responsibility he was shouting the odds. Now, when he has responsibility, he is not big enough to stand up to the people who tell him that he should not be consistent in these matters.

Mr. N. Macpherson: Mr. N. Macpherson rose——

Mr. Fernyhough: One second. I hope that the Minister will make this concession. If he does not, I hope that in six months' time, when we on this side occupy the benches opposite, it will be one of the first injustices that we remove.

Miss Herbison: After the debate had gone for a short time, the Minister made a very short intervention. In the light of the speech which he made in 1948, it does not surprise us very much that his intervention was so short. I am sure that the Minister finds himself in a most invidious position, as he must have done on 25th January. In his intervention today he made no attempt to deal with the merits or demerits of the case. He tried to ride off on what one might call a technical mistake on the part of the Opposition.
There is no doubt that the Minister knew perfectly well what we had in mind in putting down the two Amendments, but I shall speak only to the first


of them. When the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran) tried to move his manuscript Amendment, I considered him clever and I supported him, because he highlighted the poverty of the Minister's reply. He showed how ludicrous it was.
What we on this side want to know is whether, if our Amendment had been completely in order, the Minister would have accepted it. We have a right to know. If he had any intention of accepting this kind of Amendment, he had knowledge of our proposal from the Amendment Paper and he could have put down his own Amendment. Therefore, it is very wrong of him to try to ride off on the technical fault of our Amendment and to give us no idea whether he would have been ready to accept it.
7.0 p.m.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Uxbridge is going into the Lobby with us, as he did on 25th January. I am surprised that his hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Gough) has decided not to come in with us. The hon. Member for Horsham said that because of the figure included in our Amendment, it was really a Dutch auction. I am sorry that the hon. Member, who has sat in during the debate, is no longer in his place. In moving the Amendment, however, my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) explained that the Title of the Bill made it impossible for us completely to abolish the earnings rule for these widowed mothers and that we have to find some other way of trying to do the best we could. I hope that the hon. Member for Uxbridge will try to influence his hon. Friend before the Division takes place.
It was evident in the debate on 25th January, as it has been evident today, that we on this side of the Committee want to get rid of the earnings rule altogether for widowed mothers. We are unable to do so in this Bill, but at least our Amendment would be of considerable help to them. I know the Minister very well. He is not a harsh man, and I am certain that he looks on these matters with great sympathy. I should like him to take his courage in his bands and tell his officials, if they are the stumbling block, or the Cabinet, if it is, that today he feels as strongly as he did in 1948 on this subject.
The widowed mother is called that because she is a widow with dependent children. Let us think of the home after the death of the father. Children have been accustomed to living with both parents, probably both working. With the death of the father the income falls considerably. It will mean certain financial hardships for the children for a considerable time. The mother continues to work, but if she works too long hours, if she earns too much, according to the Minister, she must have a reduced pension. That seems to us to be very wrong.
Most parents wish to give the very best to their children. Hon. Members have spoken about the family with a house on mortgage. I want to speak of the family where the parents had intended to educate their children. Every penny that the widowed mother can earn is needed for that purpose. Yet the Government decide that they will dock part of her earnings from her pension.
I think now of two children I know very well, two fortunate children with both parents living. They will have a university education. Both are teenagers at present. Not only are they having what is called a grammar school education in England but they have a very fine home. They have all the chances in the world to develop any musical talents they may have. They are able to go to concerts. They are able to be surrounded by the books which are so essential. They are able to have not only the formal education at grammar school but also all the culture that they can be surrounded with in their own homes. These two children—my own niece and nephew—are very fortunate. I would want the children of every widow to be as fortunate.
Even if our Amendment is accepted, in the homes of many widowed mothers there will still be great financial hardship because the pension itself is not sufficiently large. But at least it would mitigate the position a little and their children would have perhaps a little better chance not only to have formal education but to be surrounded in their homes by music, by books, by all the things that help to make a well-rounded personality in an adult.
I beg the right hon. Gentleman not to ride away on any technical complaint


about our Amendment but to accept it, and give real consideration to wiping out completely the earning; rule for widowed mothers.

Mr. N. Macpherson: If I intervened earlier it was not in order to ride off on a technicality but because I thought that it would be equally possible to debate the principle of this Amendment on the Question. "That the Clause stand part of the Bill". Indeed. at one point my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Gough) thought that we were already discussing that Question. I felt bound to point out at an early stage what the effect of the Amendment would be. That was my sole reason for intervening then, and I can assure the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) that I have no intention of riding off on a technicality. I would in any case, in dealing with the Clause as a whole, have felt it my duty to explain what the Bill proposes to do, and by the same token, what the Amendment proposes to undo.
We have heard many very genuine and moving speeches on this matter in which the House takes very great interest. My own past has been brought up in references to what I said in 1948. I am quite certain that we all feel deeply on this matter. I ask the Committee to look at what is in the Clause. Hon. Members should compare the position now with what it was in 1948. In those days the earnings rule stood at 30s., the allowance for the first child was 7s. 6d.—and that was also subject to the earnings rule—and there were no allowances at all for other children, apart from the family allowance.

Mr. Dempsey: What about the difference in the cost of living then?

Mr. Macpherson: Let us consider the situation as it is now. The earnings limit is at £5, the widowed mother's allowance is 57s. 6d. for personal allowance and 25s. for the first child and 17s. for the other children. That is a huge difference, and this Bill goes still further.

Mr. Lipton: It should go still further.

Mr. Macpherson: I know that the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) would like to go the whole hog. The hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North asked whether, if this Amendment had the

effect of abolishing the earnings rule altogether, I would have accepted it. The answer is, no. If I had wished to accept that principle I would have accepted the Widows' Pensions Bill moved by the hon. Member for Brixton on 25th January.

Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman made his suggestion for the abolition of the earnings rule in 1948 to my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) who was then Minister of National Insurance. It was then within weeks of the Labour Government completely revolutionising National Insurance. If he wants any contrast with what we are suggesting today, will he remember that fact?

Mr. Macpherson: There was a great change at that time—I quite agree. What we are considering now is whether the earnings rule should stand or not, or whether, indeed, it should have been introduced in the first place—something on which the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) was casting doubt. This Bill provides that the widowed mother will always keep 26s. I will explain why shortly.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Before the right hon. Member leaves the comparison between 1948 and 1963, I would point out that what puzzles some of us is why he finds it impossible to do in 1963 what he advocated in 1948.

Mr. Macpherson: If the hon. Member will be patient I hope to deal with that point. First I want to say what the Bill actually provides. It provides that the widowed mother will always keep 26s. plus that part of her allowance paid in respect of an only child or of her eldest child under the age of 18 and living with her, and allowances for her other children within the definition of a child contained in the Family Allowances and National Insurance Act, 1956. All this will be exempt from the earnings rule. Already, as the Committee knows, a widowed mother's children have preferential treatment. They get 7s. 6d. more than other children. Compare that with the position in 1948 when there was no allowance at all for a widowed mother's younger Children other than the family allowance. The Bill increases the preference to 10s. The earnings limit will be raised to £6, if


Parliament approves Regulations which have been submitted to the National Insurance Advisory Committee.
What will all that cost? The 10s. increase plus the first 2s. 6d. for children, which is the same increase for other children, will in itself cost £4½million. The preferential 2s. 6d. for children will cost more than £1 million and the 26s. reserved from the earnings rule will cost about £500,000—taking £500,000 off the £1,500,000 quoted by the hon. Member for Brixton. The proposed change in the earnings rule will cost about another £500,000, so that these three items come to £2 million in all. To abolish the earnings rule after that would cost only a further £1 million.
What must the Committee deduce from that? It must surely deduce that what deters us is not the cost, but the fact that this principle must be retained, the principle that National Insurance benefit is intended to take the place of earnings and that complete abolition of the earnings rule would be bound to follow, perhaps gradually, perhaps quickly, from any move to abolish the earnings rule in any sector, even starting with the widowed mothers.
If we did not think that, the matter would be entirely different, but let hon. Members consider what has happened even recently. Last year there was a Bill to abolish the widowed mother's earnings rule; this year there was a Bill to abolish the earnings rule for widowed mothers and widows. The abolition of the rule could not be restricted to widowed mothers and if it were abolished for widowed mothers, the rest would follow.
If it all went, there would be a totally different kind of scheme. There would be great differences and some of them would not be very much welcomed by many of the contributors, because some of the new conditions would undoubtedly be less favourable if we were to abolish the principle of the earnings rule.

Mr. J. T. Price: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that this is an insurance scheme and not a benevolent fund? When he recites the increases which have now been introduced under this legislation, will he also bear in mind that the Government Actuary, who has provided the technical information on the financial

implications for the Fund, has taken all these increases into account in fixing the rate of increased contributions, which all the contributors will have to share among themselves, for the increased benefits? We deeply resent the constant implication that these benefits are something which the Government are giving away. They are nothing of the sort. The liability is passed to the contributors.

Mr. Macpherson: The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) is misrepresenting the position. We are not now talking about what the Government are giving away. We are talking about a comparison between the past and present treatment of widowed mothers. The hon. Member says that this is an insurance scheme, but that is precisely why we have to stick to the terms of the policy, and the terms of the policy provide for the earnings rule. To cut out that earnings rule—and I have looked into this very carefully, indeed—would change the character of the scheme altogether.

Mr. Parkin: I know that the Minister is very anxious to make this point. He owes it to his own reputation to make it clearly, because his own arguments in the past will stand up and confront him.
He has just laid down the principle that these payments are in respect of earnings. He says that that is why we cannot carry through the Amendment. In respect of whose earnings is the principle laid down? It is in respect of those of a man who is dead. It is not in respect of the widow's earnings.
These payments are to sustain the family in the circumstances which arise when the breadwinner dies and leaves the family without support. How can the Minister talk as though these are parallel payments to a retirement pension which is in respect of earnings by the person who has retired? We are talking about someone who has died in calamitous circumstances. How can the Minister pursue this narrow, sterile, barren line of argument, which is against his own arguments in his own past and in his own heart?

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Macpherson: That is a plausible argument, but it is contrary to what Beveridge argued and what Parliament accepted at the time.

Mr. Parkin: They were all wrong and you were right then.

Mr. Macpherson: We may well have been all wrong, but this is the foundation upon which the whole edifice has been built.
All I am saying is that we would have to look very closely before we withdraw part of what Parliament must regard as the foundation of the whole Scheme. Beveridge was absolutely clear when he said that benefits ought not to be paid to those who were capable of providing for themselves by their own earnings. Had it not been for that, the contributions would have been very much higher and the benefits in general would probably have been lower.

Mr. Ellis Smith: That is true, but that was more than 20 years ago.

Mr. Macpherson: But that is the basis of the whole edifice.
I want now to return to explaining why we decided that the figure which the widowed mothers should keep should be 26s. That, the Committee will appreciate, is the difference between the benefit far the dependent wife, fixed at 41s. 6d., and the standard benefit at the single rate of 67s. 6d. The standard benefit is greater because it contains an element for general household expenses as compared with the benefit for a dependent person in a couple or a family. I wanted 10 go as far as possible in this while sticking to some recognisable principle., and it seemed to me that it was reasonable to let the widowed mother keep that difference no matter what her earnings were, for she in future would be the householder.
However, it would not be possible to let her keep the whole of the allowance no matter what her earnings were, because that would not be consistent with the basic principle. Once that principle is breached, it would be impossible to retain the present structure of the National Insurance Scheme simply because, if the widowed mother were exempted from the earnings rule, it would be a very short time, as we have seen from proposals put before us this year, before there would be a demand for the widows also to be exempted, and that would affect widows' pensions as a whole and the age limit of 50 for widow's pension could scarcely

be retained. I argued this the other day and I need not go into it in detail now, but once that had gone, the whole principle of retirement pensions would be threatened.
The Committee must recognise that that would not be the only principle to go overboard. If widowed mothers were allowed to keep their personal allowance in all circumstances, what would happen if they fell sick or lost their jobs? Would they draw sickness or unemployment benefit as well and, if so, what would become of the general rule against overlapping benefits?

Mr. J. T. Price: If the Minister asks rhetorical questions, he must give the answers to them.

Mr. Macpherson: The Committee may not wish the answer to be given by any particular hon. Member. I have posed the general question. If that rule were also breached, the principles of the National Insurance Scheme—and I am talking only of the National Insurance Scheme and not of the Industrial Injuries or any other scheme—would be further breached, and the effects of that would be very far reaching and the cost would be considerable.

Mr. J. T. Price: Would not the regulations against overlapping benefits take care of that? The Minister ought to know that without my telling him.

Mr. Macpherson: The overlapping benefits regulations would take care of that, but would anybody accept that they should? There again the pressure would arise. A widowed mother is given her pension as of right while she is working. If she fell out of work, surely she would then claim, if she were making her contribution, that she should be entitled to unemployment benefit? I do not say more than that, but it throws the whole of the overlapping benefits rule into doubt.
Let us see what is the general effect of the Bill. Under it a widow with one child will get £4 17s. 6d.; with two children she will get £6 7s. 6d.; with three children she will get £7 19s. 6d.; and with four children she will get £9 lls. 6d. In addition, if the Regulations which have been submitted to the National Insurance Advisory Committee are approved, she will be able to earn £6 without her benefit being affected in


any way, and the most she can lose of her benefit will be 41s. 6d. She will always get 26s. If she is earning more than that, it will show that she is capable of providing for herself.
There are about 148,000 widowed mothers, of whom 21,000 were affected in some degree by the earnings rule the last time this was checked, which was in July, 1961. That is one in seven. To abolish the earnings rule for widowed mothers would involve paying £1 million more, unevenly, to one widowed mother in seven, and to those who are best able to provide for themselves and their families. I ask the Committee to remember that the earnings involved are net. Deductions are allowed to cover payment to someone to look after the children while the widowed mother is out earning her living. If an extra £1 million were available to distribute among widowed mothers, would not it be much better to distribute it among all on equal terms rather than unevenly to one in seven?
That has been the policy which has been advocated. Hon. Gentlemen earlier were suggesting that something should be submitted to the National Insurance Advisory Committee. This was submitted to the Committee, and it said that it would prefer to see any additional expenditure on this benefit go to increasing the basic allowance for the mother or her child, rather than that the earnings rule should be abolished for widowed mothers. This is precisely what we are doing in the Bill.

Mr. Ross: Will the Minister tell me the date when it was submitted to the Committee, and how much he has given away to this class by the changes that he has made in the earnings rule? He is arguing now against what he has done in the past five to six weeks. Why does not he go the whole hog and wipe out the whole thing?

Mr. Macpherson: That is not what I am arguing. The Committee reported in 1956. Since then we have adhered to the same policy.

Mr. Ross: No.

Mr. Macpherson: Indeed we have. We have extended the preferences for children. We have continued raising the earnings limit as far as we could, and

now we are continuing that policy. We are increasing preferences for widowed mothers' children, and at the same time we are increasing the standard personal allowances for the widowed mother herself. This shows that we are following the alternative policy which was preferred by the National Insurance Advisory Committee.

Dr. King: This is a profoundly important point. For a long time both sides of the Committee have kept to the principle which the Minister has advocated. There is a change in attitude coming from both sides of the Committee. All the arguments addressed to the Committee so far have been against the Minister having given the 26s., which he is giving unconditionally of any earnings, to the widow. How does the Minister square that breach in the principle with his argument now that he is standing by the principle of Beveridge?

Mr. Macpherson: I do not regard that as a breach in the principle.

Mrs. Slater: What is it?

Mr. Macpherson: I have explained that it is the difference between a dependent wife's allowance and the full standard benefit, and it is really possible to stand on that. I regard that as a basic allowance below which the widowed mother's benefit should not fall through the earnings rule.

Miss Herbison: The Minister says that the Committee reported in 1956. Does he mean to continue year after year acting on a finding made in 1956? Has he no intention of taking into account the change in attitude? Why will he not accept the point made from this side of the Committee that since 1956, in this and other Bills, he has altogether departed from that principle?

Mr. Macpherson: I do not accept that at all. As I have explained, I believe that in fixing this 26s. we have done it on a recognisable principle which can be defended, and that the main thing we have to do is to defend the principle of the earnings rule on which the whole of the insurance scheme depends.
If it likes, the Committee is perfectly at liberty to divide on this Amendment, but I think that hon. Members ought to do this in the full knowledge that the


Amendment does not do what so many of those who have taken part in the debate have been advocating, that is, abolish the earnings rule. It does not do that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran) said, it erodes it still further, and on no recognisable principle whatsoever. Secondly, the second Amendment cannot stand on its own. We would have to amend the other part of the subsection.

Mr. Ross: Do that on Report.

Mr. Macpherson: Taken together, the effect would be quite contrary to the intentions of hon. Members, and this must be what they would be deemed to be voting for. We can consider only the Amendment before the. Committee. We cannot consider what hon. Members want it to be. We can consider only what it actually is, and I suggest that the Committee should now reach a conclusion on this as we have spent quite a long time on this Amendment.

Mr. Houghton: I hope that my hon. Friends will not be discouraged from supporting this Amendment by the Minister's words. It will suit our purpose. It will express disapproval of what the Minister has said. As for a recognisable principle, what the Amendment seeks to do is 'to ensure that the erosion of the widowed mother's pension shall not allow it to go below the present figure. There may be some drafting fault in what we did, but we did our best with it.
In any case, Clause 2 is a lot of rigmarole which no widowed mother will understand. She will need a chartered accountant to decide whether she comes under the earnings rule or not, and it would be much better if the whole thing were swept away. What are all these difficulties? We do not have an earnings rule for Industrial Injuries widows, and do not see why there should be all this complication about getting rid of the earnings rule for National Insurance widowed mothers.
I hope that my hon. Friends will bring this matter to a conclusion. We have had a long debate which began on Friday, 25th January, and we might as well express our disapproval of the Minister's statement and get on to other matters which are of great importance.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: I know that both Front Benches are desirous of completing this debate. I know, too, that there are many hon. Gentlemen opposite who are hungry. I know this because their only interest in being in the Chamber at all is to ensure that there is a Division as soon as possible so that they can go and have dinner. The truth of my remarks will be shown when we return from the Division and see who is left to continue the debate.
I take the view that we ought to pursue the question of the way in which the earnings rule affects widowed mothers. I notice that some hon. Members opposite are leaving the Chamber already, as if I were going to make an hour's speech. They ought to be careful, because they may have to come back quickly.
7.30 p.m.
The Minister is now apparently arguing the principles of Beveridge. He is stating precisely what Beveridge meant in 1948. But in 1948 the Beveridge principle was more acceptable than it is today. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) reminded us of the words used by the Minister at that time. Apparently he did not then accept the principles enunciated by Beveridge. If he had accepted them then he would not have made the speech he made against the Labour Government. His speech then would have been along lines similar to that which he has made tonight. But he will not resign.
Some of us are getting very tired of hearing ex-Ministers who have been axed making the sort of speeches they ought to have made when they were Ministers. The right hon. Gentleman cannot be ashamed of his past, because when my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton)—who I hope will have something to say on the Amendment—sought to deal with this position, on 25th January of this year, the Minister said:
I recognise that attitudes may change, but if the arguments were well-founded then, surely they are equally well-founded today." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th January, 1963; Vol. 670, c. 504.]
This is not my point of view, but it is the point of view of the right hon. Gentleman. It must therefore follow that if the arguments that he advanced in 1948 were well-founded they are well-founded today.
According to his figures this concession would cost £1½ million. That is roughly


the amount spent over and above the original estimate of the cost of putting No. 10 Downing Street into good repair. Nobody bothered about that. It would have been a lot better if we had pulled the whole property down and built a modern property, thereby saving a lot of money for our taxpayers.

Mr. J. T. Price: What we are concerned about is not the state of the property but the state of the tenants.

Mr. Loughlin: I am sure that my hon. Friend is very concerned about the state of the tenants. I hear one of my hon. Friends telling me that they have already had notice to quit. Hon. Members opposite believe that we can spend £l½ million over and above the estimate, without let or hindrance, on a miserable hovel that ought to be pulled down anyway, but they support their Minister, who has the effrontery to argue that what should have been done in 1948 should not be done now.
There is no need for me to put forward the argument why this step should be taken now, although I am quite prepared to do so if that is desired. But my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) made the point quite clearly. No doubt the right hon. Gentle. man made it clearly in 1948. He ought to be ashamed of himself, and I hope that before we part with the Amendment many of my hon. Friends will continue the debate, in the hope that the Minister may eventually be persuaded to change his mind.

Mr. Lipton: The right hon. Gentleman shows an incredibly flint-like obstinacy in adhering to his sacred cow, namely, the earnings rule. It must be borne in mind that only one group of widowed mothers—those covered by the National Insurance Act—are penalised by the earnings rule. Service widows and widows of men killed in industrial accidents who have similar responsibilities and higher allowances are not

subjected to the earnings rule. Nor does the rule affect the widow with private means. She is left completely alone. If she is wealthy enough and does not have to go out to work but has an income from investments, she draws her pension in full.

The right hon. Gentleman attaches vital importance to the principle of the earnings rule and says that if it were abolished in respect of widowed mothers the whole edifice of our National Insurance Scheme would come down in utter ruins. This sort of bogeyman talk will not convince any rational person. The Minister is repeating today what he said on 25th January. He says that if we made this concession, which would cost £l½ million, we should have to do this, and we should have to do that; the Exchequer would go bankrupt; we should all have to pack up, and England would cease to exist. That is the logic of his argument.

I am prepared to concede that the earnings rule exists to protect the retirement principle, as the Minister keeps repeating. But the widowed mother, who has no retirement qualifications to satisfy, should surely not be subject to the rule. What retirement qualifications has a widowed mother to satisfy before she draws a widowed mother's pension? None whatsoever. However we may wish to regard the matter, it is impossible to justify a continuance of the earnings rule for widows.

The Minister has dug his toes in, and he will call upon his hon. and right hon. Friends to vote the Amendment down. Let it be known beyond any shadow of doubt that what the Minister and Members on the benches opposite are voting for is the continuance of the earnings rule for widowed mothers. I hope that widowed mothers everywhere will realise what the party opposite are doing tonight.

Question put, That "26s. shillings" stand part of the Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 218, Noes 188.

Division No. 40.]
AYES
[7.39 p.m.


Altken, W. T.
Batsford, Brian
Biggs-Davison, John


Allason, James
Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Bingham, R. M.


Arbuthnot, John
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Bishop, F. P.


Auhton, Sir Hubert
Bell, Ronald
Bossom, Hon. Clive


Atkins, Humphrey
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Bourne-Arton, A.


Barber, Anthony
Berkeley, Humphry
Box, Donald


Barter, John
Bldgood, John C.
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John




Braine, Bernard
Horneby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Brewis, John
Howard, John (Southampton, lest)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bromley Davenport, Lt. -Col. Sir Walter
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, w.)


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Hughes-Young, Michael
Prior, J. M. L.


Bryan, Paul
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Buck, Antony
Iremonger, T. L.
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Bullard, Denys
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pym, Francis


Burden, F. A.
James, David
Ramsden, James


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Wilden)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Rawiinson, Sir Peter


Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Naim)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Renton, Rt. Hon. David


Channon, H. P. G.
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Chataway, Christopher
Kerr, sir Hamilton
Ridsdale, Julian


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kimball, Marcus
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Clarke, Brig. Terence(Portsmth, W.)
Kirk, Peter
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.)


Cleaver, Leonard
Lagden, Godfrey
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Cooke, Robert
Lambton, Viscount
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Corfield, F. V.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Russell, Ronald


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Leavey, J, A.
St. Clair, M.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Leburn, Gilmour
Shaw, M.


Crowder, F. P.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shepherd, William


Cunningham, Knox
Lindsay, Sir Martin
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Dalkeith, Earl or
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John


Dance, James
Litchfield, Capt. John
Spearman, Sir Alexander


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Speir, Rupert


Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Loveys, Walter H.
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Stodart, J. A.


Doughty, Charles
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Stoddarl-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Drayson, G. B.
MacArthur, Ian
Storey, Sir Samuel


du Cann, Edward
McLaren, Martin
Studholme, Sir Henry


Eden, John
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
McMaster, Stanley R.
Tapsell, Peter


Elliott, R. W. (Nwcastle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Farr, John
Macpherson, Rt. Hn. Niall (Dumfries)
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Fell, Anthony
Maltland, Sir John
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Finlay, Graeme
Marshall, Douglas
Teeling, Sir William


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Marten, Nell
Temple, John M.


Fraser, Jan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Matthew, Gordon (Merlden)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Gammans, Lady
Mawby, Ray
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Gardner, Edward
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Gibson-Watt, David
Mills, Stratton
Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk Central)
Miscampbell, Norman
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Turner, Colin


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Morrison, John
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Goodhart, Philip
Mott-Radclyfle, Sir Charlee
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Goodhew, Victor
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Gough, Frederick
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Vane, W. M. F.


Grant-Ferris, R,
Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Gresham Cooke, R.
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Vickers, Miss Joan


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell


Gurden, Harold
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Wall, Patrick


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Webster, David


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Hastings, Stephen
Partridge, E.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Hay, John
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Peel, John
Wise, A. R.


Hendry, Forbes
Percival, Ian
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Peyton, John
Woodhouse, C. M.


Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Woodnutt, Mark


Hirst, Geoffrey
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Woollam, John


Hocking, Philip N.
Pickington, Sir Richard
Worsley, Marcus


Holland, Philip
Pitman, Sir James
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Hollingworth, John
Pitt, Dame Edith



Hopkins, Alan
Pott, Percivall
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hornby, R. P.

Mr. J. E, B. Hill and Mr. Rees.




NOES


Abse Leo
Boardman, H.
Carmichael, Neil


Alneley, William
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Castle, Mrs. Barbara


Albu, Austen
Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W.(Leics, S. W.)
Chapman, Donald


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Cliffe, Michael


Allen, Scholefleld (Crewe)
Bowles, Frank
Collick, Percy


Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)
Boyden, James
Craddock, Ceorge (Bradford, S.)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Crosland, Anthony


Baird, John
Bradley, Tom
Cullen, Mrs. Alice


Beaney, Alan
Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Curran, Charles


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Brockway, A. Fenner
Dalyell, Tam


Bence, Cyril
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Darling, George


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)


Benson, Sir George
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Blackburn, P.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)


Blyton, William
Callaghan, James
Deer, George







Dempsey, James
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Pursey, cmdr. Harry


Diamond, John
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rankin, John


Dodds, Norman
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Redhead, E. C.


Driberg, Tom
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Reid, William


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Reynolds, G. W.


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Kelley, Richard
Rhodes, H,


Edelman, Maurice
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Nets (Caerphilly)
King, Dr. Horace
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lawson, George
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Evans, Albtrt
Ledger, Ron
Rodgerg, W. T. (Stockton)


Fernyhough, E.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Ross, William


Finch, Harold
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Fitch, Alan
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Short, Edward


Fletcher, Eric
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, M.)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Lipton, Marcus
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Forman, J, C.
Loughlin, Charles
Skeffington, Arthur


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Lubbock, Eric
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Ginsburg, David
McCann, John
Small, William


Gourlay, Harry
MacColl, James
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Greenwood, Anthony
McInnes, James
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
McKay, John (Wailsend)
Spriggs, Leslie


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Steele, Thomas


Grimond, Rt, Hon. J.
McLeavy, Frank
Stones, William


Hate, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Mallalleu, E. L. (Brigg)
Swain, Thomas


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Manuel, Archie
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Hannan, William
Mapp, Charles
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Harper, Joseph
Marsh, Richard
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Mason, Roy
Wade, Donald


Hay man, F. H.
Mellish, R. J.
Wainwright, Edwin


Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Mendeison, J. J.
Warbey, William


Herbison, Miss Margaret
Milne, Edward
Ward, Dame Irene


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Mitchison, G. R.
Weitzman, David


Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Moody, A. S.
Whitlock, William


Hilton, A. V.
Morris, John
Wigg, George


Holman, Percy
Neal, Harold
Wilkins, W. A.


Holt, Arthur
Dram, A. E.
Willey, Frederick


Houghton, Douglas
Oswald, Thomas
Williams, LI. (Aberttllery)


Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Pargiter, G. A.
Williams, W. R. (Openahaw)


Hoy, James H.
Parker, John
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Hughes, Cladwyn (Anglesey)
Parkin, B. T.
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Peart, Frederick
Winterbottom, R. E.


Hunter, A. E.
Pentland, Norman
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Popplewell, Ernest
Woof, Robert


Hynd, John (AtterCllife)
prentice, R. E.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)



Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Probert, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Johnson, Carol (Lewleham, S.)

Mr. Ifor Davies and Mr. Grey.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.—(GRADUATED CONTRIBUTIONS.)

Mr. John McKay: I beg to move, in page 3, line 17, to leave out "increased from £15 to £18" and to insert "abolished".

The Deputy-Chairman: With this Amendment we can discuss the following Amendment:
In page 3, line 18, leave out from "accordingly" to end of subsection and insert
the words 'up to six pounds' shall be omitted from that sub-paragraph".

Mr. McKay: I think it necessary to explain shortly what this Amendment actually means. Reading Amendments on the Notice Paper and parts of the Bill to which they refer may not indicate to the ordinary man the actual position. This Amendment has been put down after being guided by skilled draftsmen. The

position before the Bill was introduced will remain as concerns the £6 payment of graded pension. If the Amendment were carried, lower paid men on £9 to £15 a week would still pay graded contribution at £6. The change is that after £15 all the incomes would have to pay 4¼ per cent. graded benefit contribution.
On the face of it this may seem a very large order, but it appears to be logical. We might not combine administrative ability and logic to get support for the ideas put forward. During the last few years the actions of the Government have definitely indicated that they are governed by class distinction. One might wonder how to connect that with this Bill. I have to go back a couple of years, to the time when it was decided to give £83 million in relief to the richest section of the people. That was pure class legislation. In this Bill and in the method adopted recently, which is now supported to a great extent, there is class legislation.


There is a desire on the part of the Government to get more finance into the insurance department. They have decided by a very skilful method when they introduced the graduated pension, that it had to be contributed to by a section of the people, those with £9 or £15 a week.
That was not purely a case of class legislation, because those on bigger incomes had to pay the same amount as those with £15 a week. That principle has been added to, but there is still a limit. The graded contributions are largely financing the Insurance Fund when we limit the contribution to a particular incomes section and give that amount of money towards apparently graded pensions, although it is admitted that the money is not gathered in a divided way. What is being applied now will apply for many years to come. The great amount of money contributed for graded pensions is going into the general fund of National Insurance and financing general benefits.
In this Bill the Government are departing front the generally accepted position which has obtained for generations. That position has been that for whatever the country thought advisable—whether the building of more schools or hospitals or spending money on munitions and destructive machines—the principle has always applied that for those national needs we cause the people to contribute on a basic principle of ability to pay. That is a principle to which we have adhered and are likely to adhere for the main purposes of the nation. We cannot finance the obtaining of the things we need unless we make the whole nation pay. That has been the position in the past, but now the Government are introducing almost the opposite principle into the National Insurance Scheme.
The lowest income groups in the Scheme are having to pay the greatest percentage of earnings. That cannot be denied. Take the case of the man on £7 a week. Under the Bill he will be paying 6 per cent. of his gross income. That seems absolutely ridiculous because, as everyone recognises, out of that low wage any amount of household and family liabilities have to be met. Under a sensible system of contribution to national aims and purposes that man would be practically absolved from taxation. That continues

throughout the whole National Insurance Scheme at the moment. Taking the graded scheme with the rest of the Insurance Scheme, we find that the man with £15 a week is paying towards his graded pension at the rate of 4·4 per cent. of his income.
8.0 p.m.
On the same income he pays 10 per cent. in tax. We have a great National Insurance scheme which directly affects everyone. It is a great national scheme of importance to the people. The Government are now reversing the principle of contribution to it according to ability. Nobody can reasonably argue that this is a special part of the nation's activities which should be looked at differently from any other great national expense or object. For nearly every national purpose citizens are made to pay on the principle of ability. All a man's family circumstances are taken into consideration before he is taxed.
Under the National Insurance Scheme the reverse is the case. A man earning £18 a week pays 4·4 per cent. to the scheme and 16 per cent. in taxation. A man earning £50 a week pays 1·5 per cent. under the insurance scheme and 24 per cent. in taxation. There is no question but that this is class legislation. A tremendous amount of the money paid under the graduated scheme—I shall not be far out if I say nine-tenths of it, or perhaps nineteen-twentieths of it—goes into the ordinary fund of National Insurance and meets all the liabilities connected with that.
Instead of causing everybody to pay according to their means to this great national institution which looks after the most unfortunate section of the people, who need the greatest possible benefit that we can give them, the Government have reversed the system of taxation on the people and are making the people in the lowest income group pay the greatest percentage of income. This is a departure from the generally accepted position. With a national aim which causes great expense to the nation, the principle of Income Tax has generally been adopted. It is wholly wrong that in this great scheme for the benefit of the people, which is as costly as practically any other purpose we have. the method of payment should be changed so that the rich pay a much smaller percentage and the people in the lowest income group pay the greatest percentage.
The question is whether the system should be changed and, if so, what change should be made. If the Income Tax system were adopted, there would be a great increase in income. To the extent that the income was substantially increased the country would be in a better position to meet the liabilities. Greater benefits could be given under the scheme. The question is whether it would be wise in the circumstances to adopt this method.
A man earning £12 a week gets 67s. 6d. benefit; that is 28 per cent. of his wage. A woman earning £6 a week gets 67s. 6d. benefit, or 50 per cent. of her wage. This seems funny until one goes into the position more deeply. When considering how National Insurance should be financed one is bound to take note of these things. It is generally accepted that the wages of women are just about half the wages of men. When benefits are being given, women receive the same sum as men who receive about twice the wage. There is a big difference in relative benefits. It all works particularly to the benefit of single women.
If the 4¼ per cent. were applied to all income above £15 a week, the Government could pay almost £4 10s. benefit under the insurance scheme, according to the best figures I have been able to obtain. This would be so if the contributions were paid on the same basis as that on which Income Tax is calculated.
In recent years the whole spirit of the Government has been in reality not to meet liabilities by a reasonable and recognised principle of payment according to ability. The Government are now introducing into National Insurance a system of class legislation. The more they keep the contribution of the higher income group down the greater the extent to which the ordinary wage earner finances the National Insurance Scheme. It is about time we began to analyse this whole matter to see if the method of contributions to the National Insurance Scheme is justified as it is operated today. I believe that it is not. Hon. Members who represent working class interests must, therefore, insist on the Government placing a more equal liability on all sections of the working public, taking the higher and lower incomes into

consideration. I have explained why the present system does not operate fairly to the lower income groups and, for that reason, it is time we changed it.

Mr. N. Macpherson: I am sure the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay) would agree that his main purpose in tabling the Amendment was not so much his hope that it would be accepted but to give him an opportunity of suggesting to the Committee another way by which the benefits could be paid for. I am sure he appreciates that the Amendment would hardly stand by itself. For example, it would mean that, with contracting out remaining as it is, everyone would be contracted out automatically if they earned more than £18 a week. Thus acceptance of his Amendment would not bring to the Fund the great profit which he expects and his suggestion cannot stand by itself.
Moreover, for contracting out the equivalent pension benefit is fixed at the maximum of the range. So the payments in lieu would be involved; because if an employee who has been contracted out leaves his contracted out employment, such a payment becomes due. If we were to accept the Amendment we would have to make many other changes as well, and I do not think that that would be possible in the time available.
I am not suggesting that it would be right to accept the Amendment because what the hon. Member is proposing is not in line with our conception of the scheme. The hon. Member is right when he referred to the position under a fiat-rate scheme with flat-rate contributions. Under such a scheme the flat-rate contributions in relation to the lower-paid workers must be proportionately much higher than they are in relation to the higher-paid. That goes without saying. What we tried to do in 1959 was to ease the burden on the lowest-paid contributors by fixing a lower flat-rate contribution; and then to graft on the graduated pensions scheme and to enable those who were contributing towards the scheme, or contracted out, to help the National Insurance Fund as a whole and so relieve the burden on the lowest-paid workers.
In addition, the change enabled us to concentrate the Exchequer contribution notionally, at any rate, on assisting the lowest-paid workers. If we were to extend the graduated scheme, as the hon.
Member suggests, beyond £18 we would not only be extending the contributions but also the benefits. We would be doing both; that would be inevitable. Thus the man earning £5,000 a year would pay more than £192 a year and in twenty years' time would have earned a pension of about £13 a week. Presumably in forty years he would have earned a pension of £26 a week. I do not know if the hon. Member had worked out those figures or had these results in mind. I am pointing out that whatever may be thought of the method he is suggesting of raising money for the National Insurance Fund, his Amendment would not be practical if taken by itself because it would involve many other changes; and therefore we must resist it.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. McKay: The Minister is quite right when he says that the graduated pensioners are helping the general funds of the National Insurance Fund. The Government are, therefore, able to keep the contributions of the lower-paid workers lower than they would otherwise be. I also accept the Minister's argument about a man earning £5,000 a year. But it must be remembered that such a man is paying Income Tax and that, of course, is the general method of meeting our national liabilities. He is probably paying five or even ten times more Income Tax than a man earning a much lesser wage.
This would seem an argument for agreeing that it would not be a great obstacle for a £5,000 a year man to pay his National Insurance contributions in the way I have described. After all, because of his higher income, is he not paying a larger share towards the ordinary needs of the country than is the lower paid worker? I am merely arguing that the same principle should apply for National Insurance purposes. The lower-paid worker is paying 6 per cent. for one pension, as I have shown, while the higher-paid man can receive not one pension but two. All I have been asking is that the Minister should seriously consider a new method of financing the scheme so that it will be more equitable, socially and in every other way, than it is at present.

Mr. Lawson: It would be true to say that most of my hon. Friends are in favour of the idea in the Amendment.

The idea simply is that those who are the best off should make the largest contribution towards the National Insurance Scheme. I do not think that any of my hon. Friends would quarrel with that conception. The difficulty with my hon. Friend's Amendment is that he has apparently forgotten that the graduated pension scheme is designed to permit contracting out, not by the individual but by employers. As he knows, it is very much more to the advantage of the higher income group—and the higher their income the more the advantage—that they should be contracted out of the Scheme.
If we were to introduce the position whereby there was no ceiling, and at the same time leave the position whereby they could be contracted out, as at present, they would all escape. To achieve the purposes my hon. Friend has in mind there would have to be a means whereby we could deal with the general contracting out position. We know that it is designed to benefit the higher income groups. I will not go into all the details of this now, for we did that in Committee on the 1959 Measure. The point is that if the ceiling were abolished, it would simply mean that the escape route would be more widely used and although I would like to support my hon. Friend's idea I regret that, in this case, it would not work.

Mr. McKay: The Government brought in a Measure under which people could contract out. It is not impossible now to say that as contracting out has gone so far, in order to overcome an evil that is weakening the National Insurance Scheme we will legislate to prevent any further contracting out.

Amendment negatived.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson): I undetrstand that the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) wishes to move the Amendment in page 3, line 19, and to discuss with it the other Amendment in tine 19, leave out "nine" and insert "eight".

Mr. Lawson: That suits the purpose quite well, Mr. MacPherson.
I beg to move, in page 3, line 19, at the end to insert:
(2) The lower limit on the amount of weekly pay taken into account under section 1 (1) (b)


(iii) of the National Insurance Act 1959 (which fixes the graduated contributions payable by employees and employers) shall be increased from nine pounds to ten pounds.
Most hon. Members will be aware that the graduated pension scheme is now confined to that band of income between £9 and £15 per week, and the Clause seeks to raise the ceiling to £18. The purpose of this Amendment is to raise the floor from £9 to £10 so that one has to reach that higher income level before beginning to contribute to a graduated pension scheme. It may seem to some people that in moving such an Amendment, we on this side are seeking to deprive of a benefit those whom we normally represent. That, in fact, was the argument used by the Minister on Second Reading—that it would deprive contributors of a benefit—but that would suggest that the graduated pension scheme is good for those in it and that the benefits accruing are well worth the contributions paid.
It is that conception I challenge. My experience is that many people would be very happy to be taken out of the scheme, and I contend that the nature of the scheme is such that the lower-paid worker in particular—whom I now consider to be the man earning no more than £10 a week—gets a very bad bargain, and if I were in a position to do so I would advise that lower-paid worker that if he could pay merely the flat-rate contribution—not the flat-rate contribution paid by those contracted out but that paid just now by those earning £9 or under—and if we could bring the floor up to £10 a week, a substantial benefit would accrue to him.
Let us look at the benefits that accrue from the contributions made. We know that the scheme is based on an idea of buying "bricks". The employee pays so much, his employer doubles the money, and that contribution goes to the purchase of a brick costing £15 for a male and £18 for a female. On the basis of the purchase price, in the case of a male of £15—£7 10s. each from employee and employer—and, in the case of a female, £18—£9 a side—there eventually accrues to the person retiring at retiral age or beyond—but not if he becomes chronically sick and can never earn anything at all, it is not paid then—a benefit of 6d. per week added to the

flat-rate pension is respect of each brick purchased.
A sum of £15 represents 600 sixpences, and one begins to get back one's contributions only when one retires. That means that it will take a male about 114 years from the time of his retirement to recover the money he and his employer have paid on his behalf. Therefore, at the best, he must be 76½ years of age before getting back the equivalent of the money paid in—and that takes no account of a fall in purchasing power or rise in prices. The female reaches retiral at 60, and can then begin to get her 6d. for each £18, but even there it will take her about 14 years to recover the money paid over during her working life.
That shows at once that the bargain is a very bad one indeed, but no such proof is required, because we all know, and the right hon. Gentleman admitted this only a few moments ago, that a very considerable part of the contribution paid to the graduated scheme is earmarked to pay for flat-rate benefits. We know that to be the principle way in which the Government solved the problem of the old-age pensions deficit, of which we have all heard, which was increasing in a way that would almost bankrupt the nation—

Mr. J. Griffiths: The problem of the deficit was based upon calculations of the increase in the expectation of life and the number of children. Is there not now room for reconsideration and could the Minister not tell us whether he is reconsidering the burden of the aged on the working population in the light of the recent figures of the growth of population?

Mr. Lawson: Perhaps the Minister will tell us when he replies.

Mr Griffiths: It is very relevant.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Lawson: But the facts as printed and based on figures supplied by the Government Actuary is that before we introduced the 1959 graduated scheme we expected a deficit of £227 million in 1966–67. Because of the introduction of the graduated pension scheme, plus various other increases and plus the change in the present graduated scheme, that is the raising of the level from £15 to £18, instead of a deficit for the year


1966–67 a surplus of £3 million is expected.
The deficit which we have been hearing about for years and which Ministers of Pensions always raised when questions about pensions were put to them, did not emerge. It was taken care of by raising the flat-rate contributions to a level which was actuarially above what they were worth and by introducing a graduated pension scheme. The second point therefore indicates that the graduated scheme is not a good bargain for contributors. Its main purpose was not to provide a graduated pension but to get rid of a deficit.
There is no Exchequer supplementation in respect of the graduated scheme. The Exchequer works on a complex formula. I think that it is 25 per cent. of the flat-rate contributions of the non-contracted out contributors, 25 per cent. of the contributions of contracted-out contributors if they were paying at the same rate as those who had not contracted out, plus one-third of the contributions of the self-employed. This works out at about 16 per cent. of the cost of the scheme. The Exchequer therefore has devised by this means an excellent formula which enables it all the time to keep at a level which will be very little above 16 per cent. of the cost of running the scheme.
There is also another big feature about the graudated scheme. If any scheme should be based on insurance principles it ought to be the graduated scheme, because it is not providing a benefit in this or the next year. It is providing a benefit in the future many years ahead. It is a benefit which only gradually rises in total. Therefore, if any insurance scheme at all operated by the Government should operate on the basis of building up a fund to meet a rising obligation it should be the graduated pension scheme. There is no such fund. The total income of the graduated scheme is used to meet the flat-rate deficits. As the claim on the graduated side of the scheme increases in future, what will happen will be an increase in graduated contribution. The 6d. will cost more than £15, or £18 for women. Provision is already made for it in the Act. We shall, therefore, be paying more and more money in years ahead for less and less money in return.
Not many people understand the scheme, but it is clearly a bad bargain and it is designed not to give graduated pension contributors anything like a bargain for their money. In this connection I submit that it would be advantageous for us to argue that certain of the lower-paid workers—and a £10 a week man must be classified as a lower-paid worker—should be taken out of the scheme.
In justifying the raising of the ceiling from £15 to £18 the Minister made a point on the first introduction of the scheme in 1958. It took a long time to make it law, for this was a very strenuously-fought Measure. When the scheme was introduced, average earnings, according to the right hon. Gentleman himself, were between £12 and £13 a week. They are now about £16 a week. The right hon. Gentleman justifies the raising of the ceiling on the ground that there are now higher average earnings.
I submit that, if that argument is sound in respect of the higher earner, it is equally sound in respect of the lower earner. If a level of £9 was considered suitable in 1958 at which to begin to tax extra—that is what it amounts to—to meet this this charge, £9 cannot be considered as suitable or fair in 1963. I have spoken of £10. The Amendment speaks of £10. Probably, it should be nearer £11 or £12 to bring it to a comparable position. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to be fair in this respect at least, he should consider the position of the lower-paid workers.
There are very many such workers today. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers) may be ready to spring to his feet and scornfully ask which workers earn only £9 or £10 today. That is a habit of the hon. Gentleman. But I have looked at some figures. My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hilton) is here and he will substantiate or correct what I am about to say about agricultural workers. According to the Ministry of Labour Gazette, the average earnings for the year ending March, 1962, which is near enough for our purpose, of 38 per cent. of male whole-time workers in agriculture were less than £10 a week. That is a very substantial number.
Extending our consideration to females, we find that what was said by one of


my hon. Friends about their earnings being about half the earnings of males seems to be fairly accurate. I referred to some figures produced quite recently by the Ministry of Labour. On the basis of a sample of female full-time workers in clerical and administrative employment—they are not among the poorest paid—we find that the average for them was about £7 17s. a week. Very many people in this country earn substantially below £10 a week.
I return to the point that these earnings are very low and they ought not to be charged to pay more than the lower of the two basic flat-rate contributions. There is no justification for charging these people a surplus.
My final point is this. I plead for special categories of women to be recognised. A good deal has been said about widows today. I know of many widows whose normal weekly earnings are very substantially below £9 and, indeed, substantially below £7. I am thinking, for example, of women who work as school cleaners, whose normal weekly income is about £4 5s. or £4 10s. net. Occasionally, these women may earn more than £9 in a given week. This happens when the school is on holiday, at which time they get down to a really thorough cleaning and do a great deal of extra work. When they earn more than £9 a week, they pay the graduated contribution. It is a case not of whether her earnings average £9 over a year but of what she earns in a week.

Miss Herbison: Only over the weekend a councillor raised with me not only this question but the fact that over a period of eight weeks these women are doing something extra each week but are paid only on the eighth week for that extra work.

Mr. Lawson: That brings out the point that I am trying to make. Their earnings of over £9 in a given week have not been earned in that week. Their overtime has accrued over a number of weeks but they are paid in one week but in that one week when they are paid the £9 they have to pay a graduated contribution.
I have raised this matter with the Parliamentary Secretary and with others. I know that this is the law and that, as it stands, nothing can be done about it, but I wish to bring out the injustice of it.

Mr. A. V. Hilton: This is a very important point, and the Minister knows that what my hon. Friend says is correct. If a person earns more than £9 a week, he pays into the graduated pension scheme. One of the methods that the Minister has used in helping to build up the fund is this. If a person is earning only just over £9 a week, obviously he can pay only 1s. or 2s. into the graduated pension fund. Suppose he has done that for one or two years. When he retires, he does not qualify for a pension, but he does not even get a refund of what he has paid in. This is snaffled by the Minister to bolster his fund.

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is anticipating the point that I was about to make. However, I thank him for raising it because it shows that others of my hon. Friends apart from myself have been faced with this problem.
A woman such as the one I have described may have to make only one, two, three or four payments in a year. Let us suppose that she makes six payments, and that one the first £ they work out at about 10d. That means that in one year she pays about 5s. in graduated contribution. Suppose that she is a woman well advanced in years. She may be a widow, perhaps a 10s. widow, a "no-shilling widow" or she may receive the ordinary widow's pension. But suppose that five or six times a year she makes a contribution of 10d. a week, which means that in a year she contributes 5s. The cost of a sixpenny addition to her pension is £18—£9 by herself and £9 by her employer. If she pays 5s., her employer pays 5s., so that 10s. is paid towards her graduated pension. At this rate, she will have to work for about 36 years to build up the £18.
However, the scheme is not quite as bad as that. She would never work for 36 years, but—and this is exceptional—if after the "bricks" have been counted up at the end of her working life there is half left over, she is credited with the whole "brick". If there is less than half, it is wiped out. If she is able to build up on her own behalf payments to the tune of £4 10s. and if her employer pays £4 10s., she will have earned an addition of 6d. to her pension. But it will take her about 18 years to do this. How many of these women can hope to


build up even the price of half a brick? Very few indeed.
Virtually all of these women are making these extra payments with the knowledge that they will get nothing back from them. It may be a case only of coppers, perhaps 10d. a week, but coppers mean a lot to women who are counting their bus fares and every penny that they spend. By raising the floor from £9 to £10, we would help some of these women and help the worst of those low-paid workers. For these reasons, I move the Amendment to ease the position of the worst paid of our workers.

8.45 p.m.

Sir Spencer Summers: I do not quite know what I have done to deserve the rebuke which the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) conveyed a little earlier. It may surprise him to hear that I have considerable sympathy with the Amendment. The hon. Member alluded to the justification given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the increase in the upper limit of the bans from £15 to £18, namely, that earnings had increased over the period by a somewhat similar amount.
The first point with which I should like my right hon. Friend to deal is this. The time which many people will take for comparing their earnings under the new system with their earnings under the old system is the beginning of the new system and the beginning of the old system, which is a period of two years and not four years as the figures usually quoted for earnings reflect.
The figures usually quoted are from £12 16s. 8d. in October, 1958, to £15 17s. 3d. in October, 1962, an increase of a fraction over £3 a week. The scheme did not come into force, however, until April, 1961, so that it is only reasonable to compare the figure then—£15 1s.—with, admittedly, not the figure at the present time, because there will, no doubt, be an increase by the time that the scheme comes into force, but to allow 5s., which is the approximate increase for each six months of the graph during the last three years, thus producing a figure of £16 2s. when the new scheme comes into force, compared with the figure of £15 1s. In other words, over a period of two years there has been an increase in average earnings of a trifle

over £1 a week. That shows a different picture from the more than £3 which is brought forward as justification for an increase in the ceiling of from £15 to £18.
We are dealing, however, with the lower limit of the band in which graduated contributions shall be paid. When the scheme was started, considerable emphasis was laid on the special assistance given to the under-£9 a week people by the excess contribution of the higher-paid people above what might have been otherwise expected, thus enabling the Treasury contribution to be concentrated on the lower paid people.
It was thought that £9 was the figure below which it was not reasonable to expect people to contribute to a graduated pension scheme. In passing, I should like to correct a false impression which the hon. Member for Motherwell, perhaps unwittingly, created and which is frequently given about somebody who for many years pays contribution at the £10-a-week level and calculation being made to show what a small sum follows from contributions paid over 30 years based on £10 a week.
The vast number of people do not remain for 30 years at £10 a week. They get promoted and have better jobs. The whole basis must be that people go up in the increment scale. Not everybody does, of course, but it is wrong to suppose that everybody remains permanently at the bottom of the scale.

Mr. Loughlin: I know that the hon. Member would not want to put something on record which is not true. It is not true that the majority of people move up from £9 a week to a higher figure through promotion, since the ratio of promotions to the total employable number is very small.

Sir S. Summers: The hon. Gentleman knows well that in addition to promotion there are increases awarded through collective bargaining which are far in excess of the increases in the cost of living. That also has a bearing on my argument.

Mr. Lawson: Mr. Lawson rose——

Sir S. Summers: I hope the hon. Member will forgive me if I do not give way. I do not think that he can add anything to the case just now. I am on his side, as I said at the outset, and it


would be better if he did not interrupt me in my argument.
If it were thought that those on £9 and below ought not to be contributing to the graduated pension scheme, and that earnings and the value of money had changed in the intervening period sufficient to warrant an increase in the upper limit of as much as £3, despite the figures I have quoted, there would be a case for saying that the standard of the person at the bottom of the scale was higher than it was when the scheme was started. It is not my purpose to argue now as to whether £10 is the right figure. But many people outside will be surprised to hear that £9 was established for valid reasons in April, 1961, based on arguments of perhaps eighteen months earlier. I should have thought that there was a good case for saying that the person on that sum was not far removed from £10 a week at the present time.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will deal seriously with this Amendment. I do not know whether the cost will be very much. No doubt there will be many more people in the lower bracket than in the higher, and that might influence his thinking. But many people outside this House will listen with care to his justification for not losing some at any rate of the lower level of the band of graduated pensions payers.

Mr. N. Macpherson: The Committee will have remarked with great interest the command which the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers) have of the scheme. The hon. Member for Motherwell put forward quite a good case for raising the lower limit from £9 to £10, but there are one or two fatal objections to his proposal.
The hon. Member seemed rather to complain that the apparent deficit had been overcome. At any rate he was complaining of the way in which it was overcome. But he would surely agree that this was a deficit which had to be overcome. Great credit is due to my right hon. Friend the present Chief Secretary to the Treasury for having devised a scheme to overcome the deficit.
The right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) asked what the effect of the latest population trends was. As

he knows, the Government Actuary always takes the latest available figures in making his calculations, in which they are reflected. Undoubtedly, to some extent these trends have been beneficial in that they are likely to produce a greater proportion of active working people than was expected.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Will the right hon. Gentleman look at paragraph 8 of the Report of the Government Actuary on this Bill? This deals with the graduated method of wiping out the deficit. When the deficit was calculated in 1961, it was calculated on certain assumptions about population which are now being revised. The paragraph says,
The bases used in the Second Quinquennial Review (H.C. 220 of 1959–60) and in my Report on the 1960 Bill have, for the purposes of the present report, been revised in certain respects. The population projection now used is the latest prepared for Great Britain by my Department in co-operation with the Registrar General; this takes account, among other things, of the continued increase in the annual number of births, which will be reflected in the size of the contributing population and the number of child dependants. During the period covered by the present estimates, the numbers of pensionable age are not expected to differ appreciably from those previously assumed.
This is what the Committee is entitled to consider now.
Will the Minister please tell us, in the light of the revised estimate made for this Bill as compared with two years ago and as he is making the changes in the graduated scheme, what is now the picture of the deficit about which he is so concerned? Is not the deficit on the new trend in population so much less than he calculated, and will he not, therefore, make the present contributors to the graduated scheme pay not only for the deficit but also for a surplus, as the deficit will be rather less than expected?

Mr. Macpherson: The deficit may be rather less than it would have been. That is bound to be so if the relativities are changed favourably, but that does not indicate that it was not necessary nevertheless to overcome a very considerable deficit which would have greatly grown over the years. One of the effects has been, according to the Actuary's Report, that we can look forward to growing surpluses for a certain period. The right hon. Gentleman will see from paragraph 17 of the Actuary's Report how these surpluses develop.
There is one matter on which I must pick up the hon. Member for Motherwell. He suggested that the quinquennial contributions were to assist the graduated benefits. They are not. They are intended, and have always been said to be intended, to help to meet the flat-rate deficits.

Mr. Lawson: If the right hon. Gentleman looks closely into this matter, he will find that power was taken under the 1959 Act both to raise the flat-rate contribution, which is the 10d. of which he has been speaking, from 9d. to 10d., and to raise the percentage payment by 4¼ on each side, which is 8½ per cent. There were two separate powers one to raise the cost of the brick percentage-wise and one to raise the flat-rate contribution.

Mr. Macpherson: Quite so, but that does not contradict what I was saying. The purpose of the four quinquennial increases, which apply both to the graduated contributions and also to the flat-rate contributions, at 5d. a time, as well as to the self-employed and to the non-employed, is to meet the deficits which would otherwise arise on the flat-rate benefits.

Mr. Lawson: Mr. Lawson rose——

Mr. Macpherson: I think that I have met the point.

Mr. Lawson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way, for he has misrepresented or not understood the point? I am not disputing that the extra money will go towards the flat-rate benefit. That is what I was saying. The bulk of the contributions, whether flat-rate or graduated, went in that direction, but the brick costing £15, for which one eventually gets 6d. a week, will cost more and more as these quinquennial percentage increases occur.

Mr. Macpherson: That is so, provided that the quinquennial increases are imposed in full. There is power to modify the increases so that they are not imposed in full. If they are, what the hon. Member says is correct.
What the hon. Member has suggested is that those at the lower level, between £9 and £10, should be exempted from making their contribution towards the deficits. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers) suggested

that we should take account of the position in 1961, rather than that in 1958 when we first fixed the span on which the graduated contributions are chargeable. We fixed that in 1958, and we had in mind—it was always a possibility—that the value of money would change, and that earnings would rise in real terms. Both these things have happened.
9.0 p.m.
I do not think that that is a good reason for raising the lower limit. People who start contributing at the lower limit pay 4¼ per cent. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, this means 6d. a week for somebody earning £9 10s., and 11d. for somebody earning £10. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point about the casual contributors who come in and out and take a long time to build up an additional pension, but that would be so wherever we fixed the level. The same complaint could be made the next time with £10, and so on.
The crucial thing is that I am not certain my hon. Friend realises that it is not just the people who are earning between £9 and £10 who are affected, but everybody who earns more than £9. This means a terrific proportion of the total revenue that comes from graduated contributions. To raise the level from £9 to £10 would mean that we would have to raise £46 million in some other way. It would mean an addition of 4½d. a side to the flat-rate contribution if we raised it in that way, which would practically nullify the benefit for a man earning £9 10s.
Given the fact that one of the purposes of the scheme was to keep the minimum flat-rate contribution as low as possible, I should have thought that the sensible thing to do was to maintain the £9 minimum now so as not to have to increase the flat-rate contribution any further than is necessary. That is, I think, the really convincing argument against raising the level from £9 to £10, and I hope that the Committee will accept it and resist the Amendment.

Sir S. Summers: If the contributions do not have to be paid, likewise, some day, benefits will not have to be provided. Is the Minister taking account of both those factors in giving that figure?

Mr. Macpherson: Since, as my hon. Friend knows, we are on a "pay-as-you-go" basis, if we do not raise the £46 million in this way we shall have to raise it in some other way. Admittedly we shall be reducing the commitments for the future, but what I am suggesting to the Committee is that what we have to consider is how we are to raise the money to pay for the benefits at present.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I put this to the Minister again. When he came to estimate what the deficit would be under the old scheme and arrived at this method of making it up, he did so on the old assumptions about population. Suppose there had been no graduated scheme. Those assumptions would have to be changed, according to what the Actuary said.
Let us assume that there was no graduated scheme and that we were now reconsidering this in the light of the changes in the distribution of population. It would mean that on the present growth of population the proportion of pensioners to contributors would have to be Changed, and if the Actuary was now considering what the deficit would be he would say that it would be less in 1970, 1980, or 1990, than what he said it would be two years ago. As the Actuary has said that in making his estimates about this Bill he has revised the previous estimates, the Committee is entitled to know the effect of that revision.
Political capital is sometimes made out of this deficit. Let the Minister come clean with the Committee. Will he tell us now what the position is, having regard to the fact that the assumptions which the Government Actuary made about the distribution of population and the relationship between the number of pensioners and the number of contributors have proved to be incorrect? The graduated scheme in its present structure was devised in order to wipe out the deficit as estimated two years ago, and if that deficit is now less than was estimated, because of changes in population, the contributors under the graduated scheme are carrying a greater burden than they should be. The burden was estimated two years ago, and if the deficit is reduced the contributors are entitled to the benefit.
The right hon. Gentleman can produce the figures. He has them in his Department. Will he tell us what the effect of the Amendment would be? It is he who is changing the graduated pension scheme. I have had a quiet word with my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) who has greater experience of this matter than I have. He is ready to speak, and I hope that he will catch the eye of the Chair. He has assured me that I am raising a very good point.

Mr. N. Macpherson: The right hon. Gentleman has asked me whether I can produce the figures. I will do my best. But what the Actuary says is that the bases on which he makes his calculations have been revised. Whether he has made comparative calculations on the old basis and the new basis relating to the present situation I do not know. It would not be right to expect him to make a comparative hypothetical calculation in respect of these rather complicated matters. I am willing to look into the question, but I suggest that the manner in which the quinquennial increases are provided for ought to take account of this kind of matter. If the experience is more favourable than was originally estimated, it may not be necessary to make the full quinquennial increases. There is flexibility in that respect, and to the extent that the situation may prove to be more favourable than was originally estimated it may be possible to modify the increases.
I am not making any promises. I merely point out that this was the kind of contingency that my right hon. Friend had in mind when he originally made the provisions for the quinquennial increases.

Mr. J. T. Price: I am embarrassed by my right hon. Friend's personal references to me, which are quite undeserved. However, I was a member of the Standing Committee which considered the old 1959 Bill, which was the foundation of the 1961 Act. I remember taking part in many debates in Committee, in those very protracted proceedings concerning the assumptions made by the Government Actuary. The basis of our claim is that the 1961 Act was a gross fraud perpetrated on the British electors. I have said that publicly. One of the purposes of the Bill was not to provide graduated pensions at their true value,


in actuarial terms, but to transfer from the national Exchequer and on to the shoulders of the taxpayers—by way of a poll tax and an increased contribution—the mounting liability of pensions already due to be paid and under payment.
I will not make much of that tonight because on this occasion I am not fortified by having the documents before me. But since I have been more or less "hijacked" into this debate, against my better instincts, I want to put another point to the Minister which he may care to consider while he is considering the substantial point which was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths).
I entirely agree that if the assumptions made by the Government Actuary when writing his report in 1959 have been invalidated by subsequent experience, the assumptions on which the Minister is presenting this Bill are invalid because an adjustment has not been allowed for. I did not hear all that the Minister said, and I apologise for that, but there is another substantial point which has been invalidated. It is a very substantial point, quite apart from the actuarial considerations mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly. If I can rely on my memory—it is usually quite reliable—the Government Actuary, in drawing up the 1959 report upon which Government action was founded, assumed that the maximum number of people who would avail themselves of the opportunity to contract out, and not pay the graduated contributions because they were provided for elsewhere, would be about 2 million. When the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors got to work on the problem and began to receive requests for exemptions, as the right hon. Gentleman will be able to confirm, the number of people contracting out was almost double the number which had been anticipated by the Government Actuary. Instead of 2 million, in the event 4 million people contracted out. They are not making an appropriate contribution to the effort to salvage these debts on the old pensions.
This was, I maintain, a profound error for any Government to make. If it is maintained as a matter of principle, as a basic principle of this legislation, that graduated pensions must be levied in this way to salvage the old pension, every-

one in the State should make an appropriate contribution to the redemption of that debt. I have the greatest respect for our institutions. I am not a starry-eyed revolutionary, although I sit on this side of the Committee——

Mr. Loughlin: My hon. Friend is a rebel.

Mr. Price: I thought I should get that from my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) who sits below the Gangway.
Bernard Shaw—the old boy is no longer with us—who was a philosopher, once said that as men grew a little older and became a bit longer in the tooth they generally grew more conservative. That is wrong. They merely get impatient with conventional methods of reform. I quote that for the benefit of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West.
I intervened in this debate to indicate that a fundamental change has taken place because of the improved demographic figures—I think that that is the right word—the demographic prognostications. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Unfortunately at one period in my life I lived and worked with actuaries and I learned something of the mysteries of acturial science. I say that for what it is worth.
There were these two basic assumptions. First there was the fallacy under the misapplication of the Malthusian principle, and the extremely pessimistic figure created to justify what was said by Malthus 150 years ago which has not been realised in the event. Human life on this earth has a way of adjusting its own errors. If there are too many old people, people marry younger and have more children. The whole process of nature tends to adjust shortcomings. I have a sort of blind faith that these forces are at work—without being too theological about it. [Laughter.] I hope that no one thinks I am being flippant about this serious subject.
9.15 p.m.
I want to make a modest contribution to the debate. The Government Actuary was wrong and we are claiming that a suitable adjustment should be made to allow for the miscalculation. He was wrong in estimating the number of people who would contract out. In this


respect the biggest culprit in the transaction has been the Government. All civil servants have been contracted out of the scheme; the Government are not bearing their share of responsibility.
These are substantial matters. I cannot do them justice in a few off-the-cuff cursory remarks, although I am doing my best. If I cared to go into the Library and arm myself with all the matters of detail, I could speak on the subject for a very long time.

Mr. N. Macpherson: May I ask the hon. Member to make clear whether he is in favour of the Amendment or against it?

Mr. Price: I apologise if I am not making myself crystal clear. I have very great respect for the proper use of the Queen's English and I try to practise it as well as I can in the circumstances. I certainly am supporting the Amendment. I thought that was perfectly clear. I am not talking both ways. I do not regard this Committee as a sort of higher form of Oxford Debating Society. This Committee is a place where serious matters should be discussed with sincerity, force and vigour and with proper information to support the arguments put forward. I am supporting the Amendment. If the Minister has any doubt, I am quite willing to speak at greater length on this subject when the opportunity occurs.

Miss Herbison: My hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) have taken up certain of the points which the Minister made. I want to take up one before the Committee divides. When he started to answer the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) who so ably moved the Amendment the Minister said there were certain fatal objections to the Amendment.
I found only one, which I can understand is, from the Minister's point of view and the Government's point of view, a fatal objection to the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman said that the previous Minister could take great credit for having found a way of overcoming the deficit. We do not give him any credit at all for the way in which he overcame the deficit because his graduated scheme

is shoddy, it is shabby and it bears heavily on people who cannot carry the burden. That is one of the main reasons why my hon. Friend moved the Amendment. He wanted to raise the floor from £9 to £10. The "fatal objection" which the Minister and the Government have to this proposal is that it would take from the Government £46 million.

Mr. N. Macpherson: From the Fund.

Miss Herbison: It would take £46 million from the Fund. The only way of getting that £46 million, the Minister thought, was by raising considerably the flat-rate contribution, but of course there is another way and a much fairer way of getting that £46 million. If he has £9 or £10 a week, a married man with a family will be paying no Income Tax at all. If under this Amendment the Minister were to release him from paying the contribution to the graduated scheme, it would be a very great help to such a man. The way to find the extra money which the Minister thinks is a fatal objection to our Amendment is to take it from the Exchequer.
It has been proved tonight beyond any doubt that an examination of all the aspects of the insurance scheme shows that the Exchequer at present is carrying only 16 per cent. of the cost. It would be a much fairer and much more just way to take this from the Exchequer and relieve those people earning under £10 a week from paying into what I have always considered to be a shoddy, shabby scheme. It is for this reason that we have every intention of supporting my hon. Friend in the Lobby.

Mr. N. Macpherson: Will the hon. Lady bear in mind that it is not only those earning between £9 and £10 a week who would be relieved? All contributors would be relieved on their earnings between £9 and £10 if their income were over £9. Those earning between £9 and £10 a week pay 11d. a week at the most.

Miss Herbison: Yes, we understand that, because both my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and I were members of the Committee which considered the Bill which instituted graduated contributions. The Amendment proposes the only way of relieving


those who earn under £10 a week. It is for that reason that we intend to divide the Committee.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 172, Noes 213.

Division No. 41.]
AYES
[9.22 p.m.


Abse, Leo
George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)
Oram, A. E.


Ainsley, William
Ginsburg, David
Oswald, Thomas


Albu, Austen
Gourlay, Harry
Pargiter, G. A.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Greenwood, Anthony
Parker, John


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Grey, Charles
Parkin, B. T.


Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Peart, Frederick


Baird, John
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Pentland, Norman


Barnett, Guy
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Popplewell, Ernest


Beaney, Alan
Hannan, William
Prentice, R. E.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Harper, Joseph
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bence, Cyril
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Probert, Arthur


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgaton)
Hayman, F. H.
Pursey Cmdr. Harry


Benson, Sir George
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Rankin, John


Blackburn, F.
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Redhead, E. C.


Blyton, William
Hilton, A. V.
Reid, William


Boardman, H.
Holman, Percy
Reynolds, G. W.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Holt, Arthur
Rhodes, H.


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W.(Leics. S. W.)
Houghton, Douglas
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Bowles, Frank
Hoy, James H.
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Robinson, Kenneth (st. Pancras, N.)


Bradley, Tom
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Rodgere, W. T. (Stockton)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hunter, A. E.
Ross, William


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Short, Edward


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Janner, Sir Barnett
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield)
Skeffington, Arthur


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Callaghan, James
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Carmichael, Neil
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Small, William


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Chapman, Donald
Kelley, Richard
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Cliffe, Michael
Kenyon, Clifford
Spriggs, Leslie


Collick, Percy
King, Dr. Horace
Steele, Thomas


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lawson, George
stones, William


Crosland, Anthony
Ledger, Ron
Swain, Thomas


Cullen, Mrs. Alice




Dalyell, Tam
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Thornton, Ernest


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Loughlin, Charles
Wade, Donald


Deer, George
Lubbock, Eric
Wainwright, Edwin


Dempsey, James
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Warbey, William


Diamond, John
MacColl, James
Weitzman, David


Dodds, Norman
McInnss, James
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Driberg, Tom
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Whitlock, William


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Wilkins, W. A.


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
McLeavy, Frank
Willey, Frederick


Edelman, Maurice
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Manuel, Archie
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Ferynhough, E.
Mapp, Charles
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Finch, Harold
Mason, Roy
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Fitch, Alan
Mendelson, J. J.
Woof, Robert


Fletcher, Eric
Milne, Edward
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mitchison, G. R.



Forman, J. C.
Morris, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Neal, Harold
Mr. Sydney Irving and




Mr. McCann.




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Bidgood, John C.
Burden, F. A.


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Bingham, R. M.
Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)


Allason, James
Bishop, F. P.
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)


Arbuthnot, John
Bossom, Hon. Clive
Carr, Compton (Barons Court)


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Bourne-Arton, A.
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)


Atkins, Humphrey
Box, Donald
Chataway, Christopher


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Chichester-Clark, R.


Barber, Anthony
Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)


Barlow, Sir John
Braine, Bernard
Cleaver, Leonard


Barter, John
Brewis, John
Corfield, F. V.


Batsford, Brian
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Bryan, Paul
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Buck, Antony
Crowder, F. P.


Berkeley, Humphry
Bullard, Denys
Curran, Charles




Dalkeith, Earl of
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Prior, J. M. L.


Dance, James
James, David
Proudfoot, Wilfred


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, sir Henry
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Pym, Francis


Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Ramsden, James


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Rawlinson, Sir Peter


Doughty, Charles
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Drayson, G. B.
Kimball, Marcus
Renton, Rt. Hon. David


du Cann, Edward
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Eden, John
Leavey, J. A.
Ridsdale, Julian


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Leburn, Gilmour
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Elliott, R. W. (Nwcastle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.)


Emery, Peter
Lindsay, Sir Martin
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Errington, Sir Eric
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Russell, Ronald


Farr, John
Litchfield, Capt. John
St. Clair, M.


Finlay, Graeme
Loveys, Walter H.
Shaw, M.


Fisher, Nigel
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
MacArthur, Ian
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
McLaren, Martin
Speir, Rupert


Gammans, Lady
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Gardner, Edward
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Stodart, J. A.


Gibson-Watt, David
McMaster, Stanley R.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Glimour, Ian (Norfolk Central)
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Storey, Sir Samuel


Glimour, Sir John (East Fife)
Macpherson, Rt. Hn. Niall(Dumfries)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Maltland, Sir John
Summers, Sir Spencer


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Marshall, Douglas
Tapsell, Peter


Goodhart, Philip
Marten, Neil
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Goodhew, Victor
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Gough, Frederick
Mawby, Ray
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side>


Gower, Raymond
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.)


Grant-Ferris, R.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Teeling, Sir William


Green, Alan
Mills, Stratton
Temple, John M.


Gresham Cooke, R.
Miscampbell, Norman
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Montgomery, Fergus
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Gurden, Harold
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Morrison, John
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Turner, Colin


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hastings, Stephen
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Vane, w. M. F.


Hay, John
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Vickers, Miss Joan


Hendry, Forbes
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Ward, Dame Irene


Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Webster, David


Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Partridge, E.
whitelaw, William


Hirst, Geoffrey
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Hocking, Philip N.
Percival, Ian
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Holland, Philip
Peyton, John
Wise, A. R.


Hollingworth, John
Pickthorn, sir Kenneth
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Hornby, R. P.
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Woodhouse, C. M.


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Pilkington, Sir Richard
Woodnutt, Mark


Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Pitman, Sir James
Woollam, John


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Pitt, Dame Edith
Worsley, Marcus


Hughes-Young, Michael
Pott, Percivall
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Hulbert, Sir Norman
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch



Hutchison, Michael Clark
Price, David (Eastleigh)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Iremonger, T. L.
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)
Mr. Peel and Mr. Rees.

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Eden: The debates on this Clause have covered a good deal of ground, and the Clause itself refers to virtually every aspect of the graduated scheme introduced by the 1959 Act. I want to touch on one or two aspects of the requirements of the Clause, and on their likely effects in the sphere of occupational pensions. First of all, I owe a duty to the Committee to declare, as I have done on previous occasions, my interest in insurance and pensions, since I am engaged by and work for a firm of brokers who deal in occupational pensions schemes.
The main effect of this Clause is to extend the range of the original graduated pensions scheme, which came into operation in April, 1961. The 1959 Act established the principle of graduation, and at that time limited the range to incomes between £9 and £15. The Act required that the employee members of contracted-out occupational schemes should have preserved for them pension benefits equivalent to the maximum obtainable under the State scheme. Those equivalent-pension benefits, as they were known, were fixed by the Act at £2 6s. 2d. By this Clause, extending as it does the upper limit from £15 to £18 and placing the £9-a-week man on the higher maximum figure, the equivalent-pension benefits are increased


from £2 6s. 2d. to £3 9s. 7d. That means that the contracted-out occupational schemes which do not meet the new requirements when this Measure is enacted will have to be revised if they wish to keep their certificate of non-participation.
In an earlier debate, reference was made to the lower-paid workers in the graduated scheme, but I think it fair to say that the majority of the contracted-out occupational schemes provide better terms and higher benefits than does the State scheme. Whilst, in theory, it is now necessary only to provide benefits to equal the £2 6s. 2d., in practice, of course, the schemes mainly provide benefits of at least £3. I believe that there is a real possibility that the extension of the range and the requirement to preserve the pension benefits of the £9-a-week employee at the top level as though he were earning at a rate of £18, coming as they do at a time when industry is faced with many other impositions, could well force industry as a whole to be much less generous than it now is.
Let the Committee consider the fact that the extra cost to industry of these provisions is likely to be about £13½ million for the total of 4½ million contracted-out employees. They might even go further than that. They might take the lower-paid employees out of their occupational schemes altogether. I would regard that as a retrograde step. It would not only be to their disadvantage if that were to happen but over recent years there has been a general move towards setting up occupational schemes of all kinds and I think that the Committee would agree that most spectacular developments have taken place in the establishment of works schemes. We should do our best to keep this momentum going.
There are other possibilities which we should do well to consider. I do not want to be too gloomy and it is not my intention to overstate the case, but it is right that we should examine the likely consequences of extending the range while the provisions in Clause 3 are still comparatively limited. There is a chance that if the employer always has to preserve at the top rate he may tend to limit his own occupational scheme. It would be a curious paradox if occupational schemes were to develop on a flat-rate basis of contribution and benefits as a

result of these requirements. We should be comparing that with what is happening in the State scheme which is in the hands of a Government intent upon introducing an element of graduation and wage relation.
But the greatest danger of the Clause is that if industry believed that what is proposed in the Bill is to set the pattern for future extension of the graduated pension scheme, it could well lead to widespread abandonment of the principle of contracting out and with it end the development of occupational schemes, the fostering of which the Government in 1959 declared to be one of the principal reasons for introducing the Act.
This is not an idle threat, even though I speak to the Committee from my very limited experience in this type of work outside the House of Commons. Already in these last few days a number of employers have communicated their doubts about the wisdom of continuing with their contracting-out provisions at all. This might lead them to change the whole nature of their schemes and alter the range of employees which they were designed to cover.

Mr. Ellis Smith: The hon. Member is well versed in this subject, and I know that men like him have access to a great deal of advice tendered to them by trained accountants and actuaries. Can the hon. Member give us some information about the figures on which he is basing his contribution to the debate, and can he also say with what he would replace contracting out?

Mr. Eden: I am not attempting to replace contracting out. It is one of the provisions which I welcomed in the original 1959 Act. I am not trying to take any step which would destroy it. All I was trying to point out—against a certain amount of background noise during the earlier part of my speech—was that the extension of the range, albeit in a limited manner, together with the requirement that, in order to contract out a £9-a-week man, he must have preserved for him in the works scheme a pension benefit equivalent to that which he would have earned had he participated in the graduated scheme and earned at the rate of £18, might tend to force industrialists who are


setting up these schemes to leave the lower-paid workers out of their works schemes.
I should regard this as a very retrograde step. I say that it might happen—I hope to heaven that it does not—because, with this requirement of the £9-a-week man being preserved at £18, which is a fairly big range, as I think all will recognise, there is a considerable addition to the cost not only of the equivalent pension benefit but also to the payment-in-lieu.

Mr. Houghton: There is no need to leave the lower-paid workers out of the works scheme. What the employer could do is not contract them out.

Mr. Eden: That is so, but I have said that I wish to maintain the contracting-out provision because I think that it does help—this goes back to one's basic philosophy about these things—to encourage people to provide more adequately against their own retirement. This is not the proper occasion to enter into those more general arguments, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows what my views on this subject are.

Mr. Thomas Swain: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the employer and his lower-paid employees. At what level of wages would the hon. Gentleman regard a worker as being in the lower-paid category—£12, £l1, £10 or £9?

Mr. Eden: That is purely academic for the purposes of my argument. Had the hon. Gentleman taken part in the debate on the Amendments to the Clause, he would know that we were discussing then £9 and £10 a week as being the earnings of the lower-paid worker; and I should not dispute that.
No doubt, the Minister has received a number of proposals as to how he should operate this part of the scheme, and I regret that the provisions of the Clause prevent him from doing one of two things. He could, for example, have related the equivalent pension benefits to average earnings in each fiscal year, leaving the £2 6s. 2d. as the basic minimum for all on £15 and below. This would then have produced a simple table with a separate equivalent pension benefit at each earnings level between £15 and the maximum.
The usual P.A.Y.E. cards could have been used for this purpose and would have provided the Minister with all the information his Department would require.
I recognise at once that it could be argued that in some cases average earnings might provide a benefit less than that which would have been earned in the graduated pension scheme itself, Therefore, I have always favoured an alternative proposal, which, very briefly, is to relate the equivalent pension benefits to notional contributions. This sounds rather complicated but it is, in fact, extremely simple. The employer would use the first column on the P.A.Y.E. card and would enter the wage-related contribution for every employee in his firm. This would be the actual contribution for those participating-in and would be the notional contribution for those contracted-out as though they had been participating-in.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Loughlin: On a point of order. Is it not right that on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" one can deal only with what is in the Clause?

The Chairman: I think that the hon. Gentleman is entitled to make his point of order. I hope that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Eden) will take note.

Mr. Eden: I am entirely in your hands, Sir William, but it is slightly difficult to limit one's arguments on this subject, as hon. Members who have taken part in the discussions and who have not come in simply to make a nuisance of themselves know. I am coming to my final point.
The equivalent pension benefits would thereby be related to equivalent graduated contributions. The advantage of this proposal is that it would give complete fairness and absolute security at relatively little cost and would produce parity with the graduated pension scheme.

Mr. E. G. Willis: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin). Is it in order for the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Eden) to continue to discuss this matter after having been ruled out of order?

The Chairman: No, but it is customary in Committee to allow hon. Members a certain amount of latitude. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West will heed the Ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Eden: I apologise, Sir William. I do not wish to trespass on the courtesy of the Committee. As I pointed out, before you resumed the occupancy of the Chair, Sir William, we had an extremely wide-ranging discussion earlier. But I recognise that that is not relevant to the discussion on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill".
I will pass from that point and move to the conclusion of my remarks. Whatever basis the Minister may conceive for future extensions of the graduated pension scheme, I hope that what is done in this Clause will not lay down a firm pattern for subsequent action. Industry, I think I am right in saying, is not opposed to extensions of the range in principle, but if it has to go back to the beginning, as it were, and alter its contracted-out schemes each time the range is extended, that will produce an unhealthy degree of uncertainty, to say the least. I attach a great deal of importance to the ending of this uncertainty.
I considered tabling a number of Amendments, and, thanks to the interruptions of the hon. Members for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) and Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), I wish that I had gone ahead and done so. They would have taken up a good deal more time than I have taken up. I did not table them because I knew that the Minister and hon. Members were anxious to get the Bill through as quickly as possible and because the extension of the range which is proposed in Clause 3 is not a particularly substantial operation.
I ask my right hon. Friend to bear in mind that he has a great deal of responsibility for private occupational schemes as well as for the State scheme, for private schemes are closely linked with anything that he does in the State scheme which can have an effect on their structure. I therefore hope that he will keep an open mind on this matter and that for the purposes of this debate, in replying to my speech, and that of any of my hon. Friends who may take part in it, will give a firm assurance tonight that he is aware of the implications of this

Clause, and that what is being done will not determine the course to be adopted for future extensions. I trust that he will consult industry and its advisers as to how best in future to provide security for contracted-out employees without, each time the range is extended, causing widespread dislocation among those already doing their best to help them through their pensions provisions.

Mr. Gough: My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Eden) and I are engaged in the same business. We are both pension consultants. I came to listen to what he had to say and would not have continued the discussion on this point had it not been for the interruptions of hon. Members opposite. For the benefit of hon. Members opposite, may I say that what my hon. Friend proposes would be of very great value, particularly to the lower-paid workers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] I am not out of order. I am merely pointing out that what my hon. Friend proposes concerning the graduated pension scheme would benefit the lower-paid workers.
Having said that, I want to add one or two points slightly different from what my hon. Friend has said. I, too, served in the Committee on the original Bill. I have never been able to understand, if one wished to contract out of the graduated scheme, why it was necessary for the lowest-paid, or £9 a week, worker to have to come in at the top grade, which was £15 and is now £18, as a result of which he has to pay a contribution based upon the top grade. It is beneficial to him—I will not go out of order by saying how beneficial it is—but it surely is not necessarily right and it is not fair to those who are not contracted out and who are on the £9 basis in the graduated scheme. This is not the time or place to put other suggestions to my right hon. Friend, but I should like to ask him to have a talk with my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West and myself. We could put to him suggestions which he might be able to incorporate at a later stage of the Bill.

Mr. N. Macpherson: I shall always be glad to see my two hon. Friends and to discuss these matters with them, because I know that they have a great deal to contribute in the way of thought to these matters.
It is just as well to bear in mind what the Government tried to do originally: that was, to provide an earnings-related element to the pension for those who were not in occupational schemes, to make certain that everybody in that position earning over £9 a week had an addition to his pension over and above what he would get by way of the flat-rate pension.
At the same time, however, the Government were anxious to encourage firms who were already providing occupational schemes—to encourage them to the greatest extent, so that they would have the best occupational schemes possible for their employees. That was why it was made a condition of contracting out of the graduated scheme that an equivalent pension benefit should be provided at the maximum of the range. That is to say, to receive a certificate of being contracted out an employer must guarantee to his employees in the contracted-out scheme a pension equivalent to what they would have obtained had they been in the graduated scheme and earning the maximum.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Eden) says, quite rightly, that if the maximum is raised, a greater proportionate obligation is placed upon the employer in regard to his lower-paid employees, in that for those employees also he has to provide an equivalent pension at the new and higher level. I do not regard this as unreasonable when one considers the movement of wages as a whole.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers) has referred to this matter, but the fact is that average earnings have risen by roughly £3 since we first fixed the span. When the span was first thought of, average earnings were a little above the middle of the span. It might not have been unreasonable for us to have kept average earnings in the middle of the span, and that would have meant a much greater increase in the equivalent pension benefit and in the span than has actually been made.
We were very conscious of the difficulties that might arise if we were to do that As it is, we estimate that about 8,000 schemes covering about 1¼ million employees will have to be modified in order to provide an equivalent pension benefit at £18. I do not

think that this is an overwhelming obligation to place on employers.
I agree with my hon. Friend that this point will always need watching. What is in the Bill does not mean that every time we have a Bill of this nature we shall do things in exactly the same way as far as the conditions of the graduated pensions scheme are concerned. I can assure him that we shall be thinking of this before any question arises of increasing again the rates of National Insurance, and that we shall take carefully into account everything that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Gough) have said.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4.—(HIGHER CONTRIBUTIONS AND BENEFITS UNDER INDUSTRIAL INJURIES ACT.)

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Houghton: I seem to remember that the contributions to the Industrial Injuries Scheme were reduced not so very long ago. This Clause enables them to be increased by the amount by which they were reduced. Can the Joint Parliamentary Secretary explain this somersault? Why were the contributions reduced? Why are they now being increased again, especially since we urged the Minister's predecessor not to reduce them but to increase the benefits? Here we have the Government going round in circles again. We should like to hear more about it.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Lieut.-Commander S. L. C. Maydon): The contributions were reduced and have now been restored to their original level in order to keep the Fund in balance. That, very briefly, is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. J. Griffiths: One of the most reactionary things was to reduce the contributions. We were told that they were reduced because the surplus in the Fund was increasing at too rapid a rate. What will be the surplus in the first year and in subsequent years now that the extra penny is to be restored?

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: I cannot give an immediate answer to that question but I will certainly let the right hon. Gentleman know. The fact remains that in a scheme of this nature, which provides insurance against what cannot be predicted—accidents at work—there are bound to be fluctuations, and no human being has devised any method of being certain of what those fluctuations are likely to be.
We have already tonight discussed fairly wide variations in the estimates of the Government Actuary and I think that anyone concerned with actuarial work will recognise that these things are bound to happen. It is prudent when a surplus is building up for a reduction in the contribution rate to be made. It is equally prudent, when that surplus appears to be diminishing, to go the other way.

Mr. J. Griffiths: We shall soon be finishing with this Bill until tomorrow. Perhaps I may leave this thought in the minds of right hon. and hon. Members. The penny to be restored affords us the opportunity to be generous tomorrow to those who need more help.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 5 to 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress; and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on the Report from the Committee of Supply of 4th February exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Iain Macleod.]

SUPPLY

[4th February]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1962–63; AIR SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1962–63

CLASS II

VOTE 2. FOREIGN GRANTS AND LOANS

Resolutions reported,

1. That a further Supplementary sum, not exceeding £4,314,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963, for sundry grants and services connected with Her Majesty's Foreign Service, including subscriptions to certain international organisations and certain grants in aid.

CLASS IV

VOTE 14A. TRANSPORT (BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION)

2. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £4,400,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1963, for the expenditure of the Ministry of Transport in grant to the British Transport Commission in respect of the Commission's deficits on revenue account.

CLASS VI

VOTE 8. MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

3. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £13,177,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1963, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Education; for grants and grants in aid in connection with education, etc., for sundry services; and for subscriptions to certain international organisations.

CLASS VI

VOTE 14. NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (HOSPITALS, ETC., SERVICES) ENGLAND AND WALES

4. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £20,047,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1963, for the provision of hospitals, etc., services under the national health services in England and Wales.

CLASS VII

VOTE 1. UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES, ETC., GREAT BRITAIN

5. That a further Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5,880,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1963, for grants in aid and a grant towards the expenses of, and for loans to, universities, colleges, etc., and for certain post-graduate studentships.

AIR SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1962–63

Resolution reported,

6. That a further Supplementary sum, not exceeding £12,000,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1963, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Air Services for the year.

Schedule



Sums not exceeding



Supply Grants
Appropriations in Aid


Vote





£
£


4. Civilians at Out-stations and the Meteorological Office
2,200,000
—


6. Supplies
Cr.3,700,000
—


7. Aircraft and Stores
16,000,000
—


8. Works and Lands
Cr.2,500,000
500,000


11. Additional Married Quarters
—
200,000


Total, Air (Supplementary), 1962–63. £
12,000,000
700,000

Resolutions agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS

[4th February]

Resolution reported,
That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963, the sum of £59,818,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

Resolution agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Barber.

CONSOLIDATED FUND

Bill to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on 31st March, 1963, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 62.]

CYPRUS (GIFT OF BOOKCASE AND GAVEL)

Considered in Committee.

[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

10.10 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will give directions that there be presented on behalf of this House, a bookcase containing Parliamentary and Constitutional reference books, together with a gavel, to the House of Representatives of Cyprus and assuring Her Majesty that this House will make good the expenses attending the same.
This Motion is in accordance with long tradition by which we from this House send gifts to the Parliaments of countries that become independent within the Commonwealth. The usual arrangements have been made whereby it is possible for the House to inspect these gifts, and I understand that Mr. Speaker will be making the appropriate arrangements for the presentation. It only remains for me to add that this gift goes from the House of Commons with our best wishes to the House of Representatives of Cyprus.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: My right hon. and hon. Friends would wish to associate themselves with what the Leader of the House has said.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

EGYPT (COMPENSATION PAYMENTS)

10.7 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Peter Thomas): I beg to move,
That the Foreign Compensation (Egypt) (Final Distribution) Order, 1963, a draft of which was laid before this House on 22nd January, be approved.
This Order provides for a final distribution of compensation from the Egyptian Compensation Fund in respect of Egyptianisation claims and sequestration losses on the basis of the new scale of compensation which I announced to the House in my statement on 11th December last year. It also contains provisions concerning the payment of compensation on the same scale in respect of certain categories of claims which under the existing Orders can only be registered but are not as yet eligible for payment. The Order is therefore designed to give effect to two of the five proposals relating to Egyptian claims which I put before the House on 11th December.
Hitherto interim payments of compensation have been made out of the Egyptian Compensation Fund under the Foreign Compensation (Egypt) (Interim Distribution) Order, 1959, as amended by subsequent Orders of 1960 and 1961. The draft Order we are now considering will revoke and replace those Interim Distribution Orders so that in future all payments will be made under the single Order. There will then be two Orders, and two Orders only, governing the Egypt distribution, namely, the Foreign Compensation (Egypt) (Determination and Registration of Claims) Order, 1962, and the new Final Distribution Order which I now propose.
If I might now turn to the text of the draft Order, I wish first to apologise to the House for a small technical error which was made in the headnote. As originaly printed, it stated that the draft Order was laid before Parliament
for an address to Her Majesty from each House of Parliament praying that the Order be made.
I am informed that it should have read:
for approval by resolution of each House of Parliament.

I am afraid that there was no time to reprint the whole Order. A correction slip has therefore been issued, and I hope the House will accept my apology for the mistake.
Hon. Members will have observed that the draft Order is printed in two types of print. Much of the Order simply reproduces provisions which at present are contained in the Interim Distribution Orders. The new provisions which are introduced by the draft Order are printed in italics. We have adopted this device in the hope that it will help hon. Members and the public to see at a glance what is new.
The House will probably be interested mainly in the new provisions, and it may be of assistance if I say a few words in explanation of the more important of them. The first is to be found on page 2, in Article 2. This provides for payment into the Egyptian Compensation Fund of moneys provided by Parliament and paid to the Foreign Compensation Commission under Section 1 (1) of the Foreign Compensation Act, 1962, which we debated not long ago. This is the provision for what is now popularly called topping up".
Part III deals with payments out of the Fund. Article 3 (1) introduces the new Schedule on which it is proposed that final payments out of the Fund should be calculated. The Schedule is on page 6. This sets out the new increased and final scale of the compensation which I announced to the House in my statement on 11th December. On that occasion I said that the new scale will enable the Foreign Compensation Commission to pay 100 per cent. to over 90 per cent. of the claimants—that is, the claimants before the Foreign Compensation Commission—and substantial increases to all the other categories up to £2 million.
Claims exceeding £2 million in assessed amount will also benefit to the extent of the basic payment of £665,000 on the lower parts of the claims. This is £176,000 more than the payments provided under the present Interim Distribution Order.
Although the scale of compensation is new, the procedure for calculating payments under the Order will be exactly the same as under the Interim Distribution Orders. A sum is calculated in accordance with the Schedule. This sum is then reported by the Commission to my noble


Friend the Secretary of State, who considers, on the advice of the Board appointed for the purpose, whether any deduction should be made on account of any ex gratia loan made to the claimant or his predecessor in title. Any such deduction is notified to the Commission and made by it under Article 4, and the amount of compensation payable is then determined.
Article 5 deals with the case where interim payments of compensation have already been made under the Interim Distribution Orders, and lays down how the additional payments due, arising from the increased scale of compensations, are to be calculated and reported. This Article is in italics, but it is based on similar provisions in the Interim Distribution Orders of 1960 and 1961.
Article 6 is not new. It deals with the case where a clamaint to whom compensation has already been paid establishes additional claims. The last Article in Part III is Article 7, which provides for the payment of compensation in respect of those claims which at present can only be registered under Article 8 of the Foreign Compensation (Egypt) (Determination and Registration of Claims) Order, 1962. Paragraph (a) makes eligible for compensation all claims registered up to 31st December, 1962. There are 983 of these.
All these claims have been carefully examined. Most of them relate to furniture and personal effects which claimants were compelled to sell under duress, and in the urgent need to leave Egypt, but there is a small number of other types of claim. We are satisfied that they are all claims which should be properly compensated from the Egyptian Compensation Fund, and I feel sure the House will agree that they should be.
Under paragraph (b) of Article 7, any claim registered by the Commission after 31st December, 1962, will qualify for payment only if my noble Friend the Secretary of State so notifies the Commission. The reason for this is that the provisions concerning registration in the 1962 Determination and Registration of Claims Order are rather widely drawn and we cannot therefore be sure that all of the claims registered in the future will be of a kind which ought properly to be compensated out of the Egyptian Compensation Fund. It is our intention

to notify for payment all claims that are similar to the ones which have been registered up to 31st December, 1962, and any new types which may emerge and which can be compensated consistently with the principles on which the present extension is made.
Part IV of the Order contains only one new provision. This is the proviso to paragraph (1) of Article 10. This paragraph is concerned with the case where the person who has established a claim dies before the compensation due to him under the Order has been paid. Normally payment will be made to the personal representatives of the deceased person in the ordinary way. But the new proviso will enable the Commission at its discretion to pay small amounts of compensation, in cases in which the assets of the deceased's estate do not exceed£100 in value, without requiring a grant of administration of the estate to be obtained in the United Kingdom. As the House may know, there are precedents for provisions of this kind, and I hope that the House will agree that this is a reasonable and proper provision to make.
There is one other matter to which I should draw the attention of the House. The rules of the Commission lay down that determinations made by the Commission are provisional only and are subject to review. In order to minimise the delay in the distribution of compensation to claimants, provision has been made in the Interim Distribution Orders for compensation to be paid out on the basis of provisional determinations and without waiting for the final review. These Orders, therefore, also contain provisions enabling adjustments to be made in the event that the amount of loss as provisionally determined by the Commission in respect of any claim is increased or reduced on review. These provisions are reproduced in Article 8 of the proposed Final Distribution Order.
Obviously, this system of paying compensation on the basis of provisional determinations could result in overpayments in some cases. We consider that the risk of this happening, except perhaps in a very few cases, is slight. That has certainly been our experience in other distributions by the Commission during the last twelve years. Also it is rarely possible for all the parts of the claim to be provisionally determined at


one and the same time. The chances of an over-estimate on each part of a single claim are so remote that they may be completely discounted. If there is over-assessment on any part—other, of course, than the last—it can be adjusted on a subsequent part.
Despite this, there remains nevertheless some risk that a few over-payments will be found to have been made and that they will not be recoverable by such adjustment because the claimant has received his final payment from the Compensation Fund. Should this happen, I think that the House would not wish us to press for recovery of these over-payments and we do not intend to do so. The only way of avoiding all risk would be to withhold the final payment to any individual until all his claims had been reviewed. The process of review must inevitably take time if the Commission is to give priority to provisional assessments of claims and I am sure that it is the desire of the House that payments should be made as soon as possible and that it would be unfair to defer payments until the review had been completed. I mention this so that the House can be aware of our intentions in this matter when it considers approval of this Order. Should the review show that an underpayment has been made, there will of course be a further payment to the claimant.
I think that is all I need say on the substance of this Order. It is clear that most of the interest of the House will be centred on the new scales of distribution. I cannot, of course, be unaware of the fact that many of my hon. Friends have put their names to a Motion on the Order Paper—
[COMPENSATION FOR FORMER BRITISH OFFICIALS IN EGYPT: That this House notes with dismay that Her Majesty's Government have accepted from the Egyptian Government the sum of £E180,000 in full settlement of the claims totalling £660,000 due to the British officials dismissed by the Egyptian Government in breach of their service contracts in 1951, and calls upon Her Majesty's Government, without further delay, to make up the difference between these two sums together with a reasonable extra payment in consideration of the depreciation in the value of £660,000 since 1951, and the loss of interest on that sum.]
I gather from this Motion that they feel that the scales provided for in the Schedule are inadequate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—in that in their view the scales will not give enough compensation to the larger claimants.
To put this in perspective, I think we must go back to the Anglo-United Arab Republic Financial Agreement of 28th February, 1959. The House will remember that £27½ million was the maximum it proved possible to negotiate with the United Arab Republic. The alternative would have been no agreement at all, and the House accordingly approved that Agreement. We never maintained that this sum would be enough to pay full compensation to all claimants. Nor did Her Majesty's Government ever commit themselves to paying compensation in full.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: Will my hon. Friend allow me——

Mr. Thomas: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to finish this paragraph and then I wilt give way. What my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister promised was that the Government would play their part in reaching a reasonable and fair settlement, and he said:
… we do not exclude a further contribution from public funds."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1959; Vol. 602, c. 150.]

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Is he also aware that on 11th April, 1959, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said:
It is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to secure from the Egyptian Government restoration of these assets in full, or alternatively complete compensation.

Mr. Thomas: I am aware that that was said before the 1959 Agreement. After the 1959 Agreement was debated in this House and in another place, both Houses approved that Agreement. The Agreement was that £27½, million would be given in sterling by the United Arab Republic Government in full and final settlement of the claims which were contained in that Agreement and a waiver of all claims which the United Arab Republic Government would have against the British Government. That Agreement was accepted by this House. Therefore, I submit that what one has to take into account was what was said after that Agreement was accepted by this House.


I have quoted what the Prime Minister said, that the Government would play their part in reaching a reasonable and fair settlement, and he said:
We do not exclude a further contribution from public funds.
Since the Suez events, Her Majesty's Government have pledged themselves to make—and have made—many dispersals to assist British nationals who were affected by events in Egypt. In all those dispersals amount to over £20 million. Some of these are recoverable, but the vast majority of this sum will not be recoverable. The sum total represented by the scales provided for in the present Order is the maximum we consider it right to ask Parliament to vote out of public funds. Of course it is not sufficient to meet all claims in full. Given that fact, we believe the system of graduated compensation is in this case reasonable and the most equitable that can be made. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] As I said earlier, these new scales will give substantial increases to all categories of claim up to £2 million, and claims exceeding £2 million will benefit by the increased percentages in the lower parts of their claim.
May I give the House a few figures? A claim assessed at £1 million will receive under the Order £415,000; that is, £126,000 more than under the existing Interim Distribution Order, A claim assessed at £1½ million will get £540,000; that is, £151,000 more than under the existing Interim Distribution Order. A claim for £2 million will receive £665,000; that is, £176,000 more than under the present Interim Distribution Order. But it is the smaller and needier claimants whom we have felt it right to have principally in mind in calculating the scales provided for in the Order.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House how many claims there are exceeding, say, £1 million or £2 million, whatever figure he has available?

Mr. Thomas: There are five claims exceeding £2 million. I think it is right to say that there are five claims between £1 million and £2 million. There are seventeen claims altogether exceeding £½ million. I say this subject to correction. Some of the claims are very large. One claim is for £17 million.
In the past, when referring to Egyptian measures, hon. Members have constantly stressed hardship. In formulating these graduated scales we have borne in mind the need to relieve hardship and give the maximum help to those least able to absorb or withstand the losses which they incurred. I hope that the House will agree that we were justified in following this principle and will accept that the scales proposed will most certainly have that effect. Accordingly, I ask the House to approve the Order.

Sir William Taylor: On a point of order. Is it the intention that the Minister will reply to the points raised by hon. Members?

Mr. Speaker: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman's intention is. Let us see how we get on.

10.28 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: First, I want to congratulate my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary on the lucid way in which he has introduced the Order, although I do not quite agree with all his arguments. I am sorry that once again he is the Minister in charge when I have to be just a little difficult about something, all the more so because he bears no Ministerial responsibility for the circumstances that led up to this. I am sure I speak for my hon. Friends when I say that we are at least grateful for one announcement the Minister made tonight in relation to the provisional determination of claims. This will be of undeniable benefit in a very marginal way, but it is none the less what is called a concession in the House, although not the one which I seek tonight.
This is called The Foreign Compensation (Egypt) (Final Distribution) Order, 1963. The word "Final" sticks in my gullet. My mind goes back to 16th March, 1959, when the House approved the Financial Agreement with the United Arab Republic. My hon. Friend the Minister referred to that debate, and I am glad that he did so. On that occasion many speeches were made. It was made very clear in the speeches of the Prime Minister and, indeed, of the then Leader of the Opposition, the late Mr. Gaitskell, that such a sum as that which the Under-Secretary of State regularly admitted tonight, even as supplemented by anything which accrued since and with a modicum


of interest, despite the fact that tax was paid on it, would not be entirely unequal to what basically had been settled. I think that even then it was estimated that the Egyptianised claims would be of the order of £45 million to £50 million according to whether certain land claims would come into being as well, and sequestration would be of the order of £130 million. All this was made perfectly clear in the House.
It is worth quoting what the then Leader of the Opposition said on that occasion, because he said it with considerable clarity—only underlining what the Prime Minister himself said in a shorter version later in the same debate—and confirmed the basic facts which came out time after time in that debate and have so much bearing on what we have to decide tonight. He drew attention to the figures I have already given of these Egyptianised claims and went on to indicate that in addition to all these were the sequestrian claims which were somewhat doubtful at that time. He drew attention to paragraph 5 of Article 4 of the Agreement which absolved Egypt from all liability; that liability was then accepted by Her Majesty's Government, and he went on to say this, which I think is very well worth quoting:
This means that the Government have given up, not only on their own behalf but on behalf of all the owners of property, not only against the Egyptian Government but against any Egyptian citizen, all claim to any further compensation, whatever the state of the property may be when the owners get it back again. There may be a business where all the cash has been taken; there may be a house from which all the furniture has been removed; there may be factories which have been run down; there may be machinery which has got rusty or smashed or stolen. There is not one penny of extra compensation to be payable by anybody, so far as Egypt is concerned, either to the Government or to the owners of the property."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1959; Vol. 602, c. 45.]
That was the position we were faced with then. That undeniably caused a lot of bitter comment, and I do not think, quite frankly, that at the time the Government could have had a much worse Press. Even the Daily Telegraph, which is said to be relatively kind to them at times, said about that time:
This is a sorry day. After a spree like Suez there is a bill to pay. The tragedy is that the bill has gone to the wrong address. Why should a few luckless business men bear entirely the burden of our collective insanity?

The argument went on in the country.
Is it not germane to ask whether or not one of the many reasons at any rate for that operation at that time—of course, obviously it would be quite improper to discuss the operation itself, but it was said at the time—was to protect the property assets of British nationals? I do not want to advance the argument, for this is not the occasion, but this was not an instance of a country being invaded in ordinary circumstances which we know only too well from experience and from history, in which ordinary war conditions apply. There was no war of the ordinary type. No less a person than Mr. Bevan brought this out to some effect. He said in that same debate:
We had plenty of warnings of the Second World War. People could take evasive action. As I pointed out the other day, in a supplementary question, when I was at the Ministry of Health in 1947 we made plenty of preparations for giving temporary hospitality to Americans from the Continent of Europe in the event of the Berlin incident developing on tragic lines. The trouble in this war"—
he meant the Suez adventure, if that is what to call it—
was that our people abroad had no idea of what was to happen to them. They had no warning. They could not get away. It seems to us that in those circumstances there is a case for additional compensation if the £27 million proves to be inadequate, as we all assume it will. I bone that our position in this matter is quite clear."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1959; Vol. 602, c. 140.]
That is important. In fact, it led to a number of hon. Members who were supporters of the then Conservative Government, including myself, feeling somewhat disturbed. I recall discussing the matter with some of my hon. Friends at the time, when we wondered what we should do about it. However, the Prime Minister addressed the House on the subject and made one or two important statements. One has already been referred to. My right hon. Friend stated that while the Government were not pledged they would not rule out the question of additional funds from public money being made available if the £27½ million was not adequate for the task. My right hon. Friend said:
The House can rely upon Her Majesty's Government to take any necessary steps which may appear to be suitable and fair after this Agreement has begun to work itself into practical effect."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1959; Vol. 602, c. 152.]


I am extremely conscious of that debate. I well remember my feelings and the conversations I had with several of my hon. Friends, some of whom are here tonight. I recall saying, "I feel personally that that rather settles it." It seemed that the Prime Minister had made the position clear, but I regret to say that I took it as meaning a good deal more than it has turned out to mean.
I say in all truthfulness—and I see the Patronage Secretary in his place—that I could not have voted for the Government on that occasion, remembering my great constituency interest in this matter, had the Prime Minister not made that sort of statement into which I had read what I frankly believe everyone else read into it—a good deal more than we have had tonight from the Joint Under-Secretary of State. That is what has disturbed the consciences of many hon. Members.
I suppose it can be argued that, by having second sight or having thought the matter out again, the Government's original stand was diluted. But it was not taken that way. My hon. Friend said in his opening remarks that we should not grumble because, after all, we passed the Financial Agreement on that occasion and that we ought to be hoist with our own petard. That is not quite so. I know that my hon. Friend means to be fair, but it is not being fair to hon. Members who, frankly, at that time were fervently of the opinion that the Prime Minister intended to go much nearer to the statements which had been made before and which had given us the impression that much more was to be done. They were taken as having some meaning; to be reassuring the House in a big way. If I remember aright, the House needed it at that time. After all, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) had said in 1957:
The blocked accounts are our security for the claims of British subjects against the Egyptian Government. We have no intention of whittling away that position. The House can be sure of that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th May, 1957; Vol. 570, c. 584.]
I recall a noble Lord saying in another place on 18th December last that words had indeed lost their meaning. Were those words I have just quoted not supposed to reassure the House as to what Her Majesty's Government meant to do?
The Foreign Office was itself most categorical and firm in a statement that followed the Prime Minister's statement of, I think, 11th April, when he assured the House that the Government's policy was the restoration of assets in full or, alternatively, to complete the restoration. Those two statements tied together and were meant to tie together—and I have in the last 48 hours read every word of those debates—and were meant to mean something to this House. It is part of my case, and I want to speak with the greatest moderation, that the Government have "ratted" on that assurance to the House.
No wonder that the Government have been taken to task time after time here and in another place. Strong speeches were made in another place on 18th December. They should have made the Government blush, instead of which we get the Earl of Dundee, the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government—having, I suppose, together with the rest of them, rather been fooled—trying to say that there was something generous in the Government's position. To give him credit, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State was a little more modest about it, and I take my hat off to him for it, because there can be no talk of being generous, none whatever, in the context in which I have tried to place this discussion.
I turn to the method of distribution. First, there is the statement that 90 per cent. of the claimants will get 100 per cent. That is statistically correct on heads of claims, but the Government cannot be unaware that this statement has led a great many people—I do not say that it has been done wilfully—to imagine and to hope that they would get a very much better degree of compensation than they are getting.
Frankly, to say that 90 per cent. were to get 100 per cent. is to mislead the country. I am the first to say that I do not think that the statement was intended to mislead, but it does, and some responsibility must lie on the shoulders of the Government for it. Many people have thought that they were to get more compensation, because that statement must have meant to them that they were included in the 90 per cent.——

Mr. Thomas: This is a rather serious matter. I wonder whether my hon. Friend


would enlarge on it? In what way could it possibly mislead the country? At the time when I said that over 90 per cent. of the claimants would receive compensation in full, I also gave the increased scales of payment.

Mr. Hirst: My hon. Friend must really credit the country with some difficulty in understanding these Orders. I do not know how many hon. Members can cross their hearts and say that they understand all these scales, statements, garbled figures, and the rest. I may be rather a fool, but I have made a great study of the subject and I find it all rather difficult to understand—and I am honest about it. Many people find it impossible.
I do not want my hon. Friend to get anxious or think that I am having a rather hard bash at it, but I say that this statement led people to think, "If 90 per cent. are to get 100 per cent., somehow I must be included." I do not say that it was intentional, but it was a grave misfortune, and the Government must realise that they made things much more difficult for people like myself, representing constituencies, by making that statement.
I must wax a little hot on the principle involved. I ask the House to imagine what the reaction would be among creditors if an official receiver, presiding over a meeting when there were insufficient funds, were to say, "Ladies and gentlemen, I regret to say that there is only £10,000 to distribute against claims of about £100,000, and I have made the following decision. Those with claims of up to £100 will get 5s. in the £, those with claims of up to £1,000 will receive 2s. 6d. in the £, and those with claims of over £10,000 will get 6d. in the £" What sort of reaction would that create? What a dangerous precedent, in a sense, this is.
It has been put to me by someone who is rather more of a Government well-wisher than I am this evening—though I am, too, on some occasions—that this is rather similar to what is done on the Stock Exchange, but there is in that principle no parallel with the allotment of shares in the City. Claims against cheques sent in are applied for in the hope of getting on to a good thing. There is no parallel whatsoever. I do not know whether my hon. Friend is here, but I hope that he will take that and not water it particularly.
I have no personal interest in this matter. I have not a single share in any company likely to have any benefit from this. There may be some, but I do not know of them. I have a constituency interest and, apart from that, I am always prepared to fight in the House for what I call integrity in public life, and I consider that that has been a little tarnished in this case. I am prepared to fight for the fulfilment of clear intention. I think that the House has been given a clear intention in the speeches made. If they were not intentions I must fight against misleading statements, however much that event was not intended to mislead.
I have a constituency interest, as everyone knows, in the wool textile industry. One firm, as many hon. Members know, has given great service to the textile industry. I refer to the Bradford Dyers' Association. Many other hon. Members may refer to other cases as well as this one which has a certain amount of particular interest. To be completely in order I refer to only one aspect of claims in this context. There are several others. There is an Egyptianisation one. There is also sequestration as applied to this Order. But these are outside the figures which I shall give.
Like others, I have made a case for this company in which I have a con stituency interest several times. In another place the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, who has had a long and close association with the textile industry, made a strong case for the principle and for the firm involved. Here is a firm of over 13,000 shareholders, many of whom are present and retired employees and widows of former employees. The chairman of the company and his associates have gone through the list to check who they are. Many of them are very small income people. Some are of the unfortunate age group who did not even fit into pension insurance and who hoped to eke out a living on the modest sums left to them. They are people who are more frightened of life than any others I know. There is a considerable number of them.
It is not right and not fair and not presenting the true picture for my hon. Friend, although he tries to be fair and means to be so, to think that he can get away with it by saying that only


so many claims over a certain figure come in, as though this was Mr. Clore's or Mr. Cotton's personal bank account. It is not. In many other fields under this heading there are masses of people involved and many instances, as I know in this company, where they are anxious when they get compensation to return it on a per capita basis to the shareholders and will not put it in the pot for anything they may think fit. Why, in heaven's name, should they have been penalised and almost have been selected for penalisation by the Government because they have the misfortune in the Government's eyes to be in aggregate a large corporate cake?
What, pray, has the Government spokesman in another place to say about such companies? The noble Lord, Lord Dundee, is reported in HANSARD for 18th December last as saying:
The claims of those who exceed £1 million or £2 million will be greatly improved in fact by the new scale…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 18th December, 1962; Vol. 245, c. 1060.]
In more modest language, the Joint Under-Secretary said the same thing tonight. They are in fact a category of £2 million, and their greatly improved scale is less than 10 per cent. of their debt. What is that to crow about in the light of the record which I have placed before the House today? Companies like this have also deep sequestration claims. I should like to be clear about the position there. I think that I understood my hon. Friend rightly, but one wants to be so sure in these matters after all our troubles.
Is it quite clear that claimants whose claims are not yet finalised will, notwithstanding the level of money which is to be provided to the Foreign Compensation Commission under this Order, get their fair scale, such as it is—I do not accept the scale—even if the amount of money has run out? We need an assurance about that, for, obviously, unfair as this is, it would be—I must for once use a stronger word, which I have tried to avoid—grossly unfair if that were not so.
In my humble opinion, the Government should have a lot on their conscience. They have nothing to preen themselves about. They have nothing to parade before the House or the country,

saying that they have done a generous or fine thing. They have done nothing of the sort. They have done the minimum, the very minimum, to pay lip-service only to a pledge which the House accepted at the time would at least be a pledge in the sense that true fairness and true regard for these people would be shown. The votes collected that night were collected on that basis.

10.51 p.m.

Sir John Barlow: I do not propose to go into the matter at length tonight because my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) has dealt with the background so adequately. It is very late, but this is a very important matter, and the principle of it is of the utmost importance.
In accordance with the usage of the House, I declare an interest. I am a director of the Calico Printers Association, which has a large interest, though I do not propose to talk about that side of the question tonight. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has told us that there are about 17 large applicants who are not to receive anything like 100 per cent. payment. It seems to me utterly wrong that the Government should sponsor such an arrangement as this. In any other sphere of life, all of us would regard it as wrong. Supposing that there were balances held in a bank of anything from £10,000 to £1 million and the bank suddenly said that it would pay the smaller creditors in full and the others at a scaled down rate, no one would stand for that. Yet that is really what the Government are trying to put across tonight.
I will mention one of the circumstances of one of the large applicants, the British American Tobacco Company, which is, I think, the largest, with a claim of about £17 million. It has about 110,000 shareholders. It seems to me completely wrong that, because those shareholders are in a corporate body, they should be paid at a rate of about 22 per cent., whereas, if they were represented individually, they would be compensated in full. The Minister has not answered that point in any way. I hope that he will deal with it later tonight.
In the past, we have had complete assurances from the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the


basis of which the larger claimants expected to have a fair deal. In my submission, they have by no means had a fair deal. It is quite wrong that the Government should take advantage of the fact that there are comparatively few of them. Although there are few involved, the country and the shareholders concerned will take this to heart personally. It is wrong for the Government to do what they propose, and I feel so keenly about it that, unless the Minister can offer some better assurances than he has so far, I shall be very inclined to divide the House against the Order tonight.

10.55 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall: As the House will know. since I raised this subject on the Adjournment just over a year ago, I have a personal interest in this matter in that a number of people involved are personal friends and some are relations of mine.
Broadly, four categories of persons are involved. There are those who had their property nationalised, or Egyptianised. Next, there are those who had their property sequestrated and then desequestrated. The third category are Those who had their property renationalised in 1961, and the fourth are certain individuals whose property was seized in October, 1961 and still remains seized—they have not been mentioned so far in this debate.
I will begin with the first category, those who had their property Egyptianised. It was said at the time of the various debates that the value of this property was about £65 million. The property which was sequestrated and then desequestrated was said in those days to be worth about £130 million. I believe that the fund of £27½ million, to which my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State referred, has risen to over £29 million, presumably because of accrued interest. The Government have topped it up by £5½ million, thus producing a total of about £35 million to compensate people who have had their property nationalised or Egyptianised. The figure is actually a little less than that, because out of this sum comes the claims of people who have had their property sequestrated and then desequestrated. They can claim damage to property while it was sequestrated against this fund.
Therefore, it is fair to say that the Government have allocated something

like £32 or £33 million to deal with claims valued at about £65 million: in other words, about 50 per cent. of the total, but that includes only the people who have had their property Egyptianised and not the other categories. Thus the claim, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) has referred, that 100 per cent. payment is being made to over 90 per cent. of claimants can be described as technically correct but also as giving the wrong impression. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley that it probably was not meant to convey a wrong impression, but when it was reported in the Press many friends and correspondents of mine assumed that it covered all four types of claimant and not merely this one category. This is an additional argument to those advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley to show that this claim does not ring true.
I believe, also, that I am right in saying, although I do not have a copy of HANSARD with me, that when the statement was made it was said that 100 per cent. payment would be made to over 90 per cent. of the people involved. It is, however, a question of 90 per cent. of claims rather than people, which is a very different matter. These are only claims which have been adjudicated upon, for which people have been able to produce the evidence on which they can be certified for payment.
I repeat the request for an assurance concerning those who have not yet been able to obtain evidence to support their claims. There are many who, physically, have not been able to get from Egypt the evidence on which to base a statement for compensation. Those people are now confined merely to asking for repayment of the sequestration charges. If and when they can produce the evidence, will they still be able to obtain payment of claims under the Order?
As an aside, I may say that under the terms of the Anglo-Egyptian Agreement the position was that the Egyptian Government, should facilitate in every way the documentation of claims, allow documents to be sent out of the country and give all possible help to claimants in proving their claims. It cannot in fairness be said that this part of the Agreement has been fully honoured as many


people are still unable to obtain the necessary documents.
There is also the question of the speed at which claims are assessed by the Foreign Compensation Commission. I have no criticism to make of that Com-missionit—it has a large number of claims to deal with—but I should like to know from my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary, when he replies, whether it might be possible to increase the staff of the Commission. One knows that the staff are working flat out, but there are a number of claims, of which I have personal knowledge, by people who submitted their papers for assessment at least twelve months ago but which have not yet been adjudicated upon. Is there any way we can speed this procedure up?
I said earlier that, broadly speaking, the Government, by this Order, were paying about 50 per cent. of the assessed value of the claims of Egyptianised property. But I also referred to the fact that there are large numbers of people whose property has been desequestrated and who, technically, can have it back but, in practice, cannot because it is frozen or blocked. The Government have assisted these pepole to get £5,000 per head out of the country which was allowed under the terms of the Agreement. That did not actually take place, however, until very recently, and then only because the Government made a loan to Egypt in August last year of some £750,000. This has helped, but if one adds up all that the Government have done, including the £2½ million for hardship and £500,000 for agents' fees, one finds that it all amounts only to about £5 million as against the assessed total of blocked accounts of some £25 million, and that therefore the help offered to this category is about 20 per cent. of the claim against 50 per cent. for Egyptianised property.
The argument that these people still have the title of their property in their possession is not valid. They are now scattered all over the world. They cannot go back to Egypt. If they are chartered accountants or lawyers they cannot return there to practice. Their property will remain sequestrated in effect until we can get the accounts unblocked. I hope that my hon. Friend will bear the plight of these people in mind and undertake to press the Egyptian Government

to live up to the full terms of the Agreement, which laid down £5,000 per head "now "—that was some years ago and has not yet been fully implemented—and more as soon as considerations such as exchange conditions permitted.
The Egyptians have not lived up to the terms of the Agreement. They have not even thought of going beyond the strict interpretation of the terms, as the Agreement implied that they would. I hope that my hon. Friend will bear that in mind and bring what pressure he can to bear on behalf of this very large class of people who have not been greatly helped by the Government so far. These people look like receiving about 20 per cent. of the funds that are now blocked. whereas those who had their property nationalised and will not get it back are to get over 50 per cent. in sterling paid in this country, where it is really of value.
Some property, factories and land released under the Agreement were, a few months later, nationalised. Therefore, strictly speaking, they do not fall under the terms of the Agreement. They are now valued at something like half the value given to them when sequestrated after Suez. It is claimed that compensation on this reduced sum will be paid by the Egyptian Government in Egyptian bonds, but no bonds have been paid yet.
In addition, there are 40 or 50 British subjects whose personal property—houses, belongings and clothing—were seized in October, 1961. No reason or excuse for this seizure has been given. For 18 months I have been asking questions about what the Government have done in this matter. In justice, it is the Government's duty to protect British nationals submitted to this kind of piracy—there is no other word for it.
I hope that my hon. Friend will get together with other Governments—including the French, Italian and the Greek—whose nationals have been similarly treated to see if action can be taken in the International Court or elsewhere to try to remedy this grave injustice. I suggested to my hon. Friend 18 months ago and he said he would look into the matter.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Member, but I am not sure where this debate is getting to.


I take it that this matter to which he is now referring will in no way be affected by the House approving or not approving this Order.

11.5 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Bence: I intervene for one principal reason. I disagree on principle with the idea of paying varying percentages of compensation to individuals and institutions. The assumption seems to be that if an institution loses millions of £s this loss does not affect individual persons. I object to this assumption. All my life I have resented the idea that an institution is some body without a soul and that one can do what one likes with it because people are not involved. Surely an institution is merely the framework inside which there are people who are shareholders of that institution? All sorts of people are involved in the running of an institution.

Mr. P. Thomas: Perhaps I can assist the hon. Gentleman. There is no distinction in this Order between a person and a company. If a company has a claim for £10,000 it will receive this claim, if assessed as such, in full.

Mr. Bence: I thank the hon. Gentleman for helping me. If the claim is for £10,000, it is quite likely that one, two, or three people are involved, but if the claim is for £2 million, it is more than likely that a public limited liability company is involved. However, a limited liability company may be involved if the claim is for only £10,000. It may be a private company run by a family—father, son, uncles, and so on. The point to remember is that people are involved. Institutions are persons, and are as important in this context as the person with a claim for £10,000.
I remember the famous novels by Benjamin Disraeli, "Ahoy" and "Ixion," in which he exposed this frightful institutionalism whereby individuals are forgotten and everybody assumes that an institution with a balance sheet and assets is a well of inexhaustible resources, and that if it is milked individuals do not suffer. I have never believed that, and never will. When we are dealing with institutions, we should remember that whatever we do with them, and however much we tax them, we impose burdens on persons in them.
It is probably true that in the nineteenth century many of these large institutions were owned by a small group of very wealthy men, but I do not believe that that is the case in the twentieth century. I do not believe that we are placing a burden on some very powerful shoulders. We may be placing a heavy burden on technicians, managers, and directors, with small holdings in the company, at a time when they are trying to keep the company going in a highly competitive world, not because of something they have done, not because of their mismanagement of the company, but because of what the Government have done.
Suppose the British Motor Corporation had an assembly plant in Egypt—whether it has or not I do not know—which cost between £63 million and £4 million to build and it was destroyed in the fighting. I should say that I would be sorry if Sir Leonard Lord had to write off the loss he suffered by the Government deciding what they were prepared to pay him by way of compensation. I have no interest to declare in this because I am not a shareholder of the B.M.C., but in the circumstances which I have mentioned the shareholders would obviously be affected by the loss.
Apart from that dissertation on something about which I feel strongly, I understand that 90 per cent. of the claims have been paid in full. Have they been paid 100 per cent. of what they claimed they lost, or 100 per cent. of what the Claims Board thought was fair compensation for what the claimants had lost?
If I had some property in Egypt and told my accountant, "I estimate, according to my trading figures, that this business is worth £15,000 to me", and my accountant put in a claim for £15,000, but had it reduced to £10,000 by the board, if, in the hon. Member's words, my claim was met 100 per cent., would I receive £15,000 or £10,000? I am not sure what the hon. Member means when he refers to claims being met 100 per cent.
Secondly, what is the total amount disbursed to the victims of the unfortunate affair—this slight difficulty at home—and how much is expected to be disbursed to the remaining 983 claimants? Thirdly, I presume that in the case of these institutional claims foreign nationals


may be involved—individuals holding property in Egypt other than citizens of this country. In this connection I heard of an extraordinary case arising out of the Suez affair. It was unbelievable that such a thing could happen. It was rather an interesting case.
The Home Secretary at the time was the right hon. Gentleman who is now the First Secretary of State. The position was that a Lebanese man living in Manchester had married a Scots lady; they had had three children, born in Manchester, and had then moved to Alexandria in 1938, where a fourth child was born. When the Suez crisis developed they had to leave Egypt. The man had never been naturalised in this country, so the British authorities said that he was still a Lebanese; the wife and the children born in Manchester were British, and the fourth child—a daughter—was also held to be Lebanese, taking the nationality of her father.
The Egyptian authorities said that none of the family could stay in Egypt, because they were not Egyptians, so the wife and three children came to Glasgow, leaving everything behind but what they wore, and the father and daughter went to Beirut. The Americans were in Beirut at the time, and within about four days the father died. The situation can be imagined. Apparently he collapsed. Fortunately, on the initiative of the First Secretary of State the child was got out of Lebanon and was flown home by charter aircraft to Glasgow. If ever there was a potential tragedy arising from the events at Suez, that was it. I do not know whether that claim has been met, but I hope that the Government, in considering these claims, will remember that when they are dealing with institutions they are dealing with human beings.

11.13 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Tiley: I shall be brief. I shall not go over the ground which has been so well covered by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst). My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Sir W. Taylor) and I have a constituency interest in the matter. The point made by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) about ordinary people being involved even in the case of institutions applies particularly to the Bradford

Dyers' Association, with its 13,000 stockholders. Over two generations this company has encouraged its workers to buy its shares on preferential terms. By making this institutional demarcation in the list we are prejudicing the very companies who have been advancing the Tory principle of spreading the ownership of property and shares. It is an important point of principle.

Sir William Taylor: Fair shares for all.

Mr. Tiley: As my hon. Friend says, there should be fair shares for all.
It is not possible for business companies to insure against these losses. One may insure against a bad debt by insolvency or in the operation in the actual sale of a commodity by a foreign government, but one cannot insure through the Export Credits Guarantee Department or the private market on assets in another country. This should be looked into by the Front Bench because, if we are not to venture into Europe, we are being implored to venture into other parts of the world. Combines and big companies are being asked to take these risks. Then, when losses over which they have no control occur, we do not deal with the matter on a fair basis.
I am very glad that it is not my business to answer this debate in which the points have been so well put by my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East. There is no case to be made against this issue of principle. The claims have been admitted and the loss has occurred. Bradford Dyers' Association and all the other people are losing 60 per cent. of the claims which have been agreed. All that has been agreed and they have been lost—in a manner over which they have no control—by Government action. We are prejudicing the interests of trade in future in all the backward parts of the world and the spread of share ownership if we do not deal with this matter as an issue of principle and fair shares for all. What has been adjudged lost should be reimbursed.

11.17 p.m.

Sir William Taylor: I am prepared to allow my case to rest on the very able speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst). The unfortunate intervention of the Joint Under-Secretary in the speech of the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire,


East (Mr. Bence) clearly indicated the lack of principle which has dictated Government action in this matter.
This Order is a monumental piece of injustice. I am ashamed to be associated with a party and a Government which have brought it forward. How on earth can we face the British people when a clear discrimination is made between a corporate body—which in the case of the Bradford Dyers' Association mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Tiley) comprises 13,000 shareholders, many of whom are small shareholders, widows, retired employees and the like—and other classes of claimant? There is no moral justification for this.
The Joint Under-Secretary made a valiant effort to justify the Order and the principles, if such they can be called, upon which the Order was drawn up and upon which the financial calculations were made. He gave no explanation in principle to justify what his Government have done. I suspect that the Government have looked at the total sum available, £27½ million, and decided which method would have the least unfortunate effect on the British public. This leads to statements about 90 per cent. of the claimants receiving 100 per cent. of their claims. There is something very sinister about this whole affair.
I register my protest against this Order. I cannot accept the Joint Under-Secretary's opening statement that full consideration has been given. I believe in fair shares for all. I believe that where a large corporation comprising many small shareholdings has a legitimate claim, the claim should be met on the same basis as the medium and lesser claims of individuals so that justice is not only done but is seen to be done, which is a basic principle of British public life.
I hope that the Under-Secretary will be prepared to say before he leaves that he will reconsider the matter and tell his right hon. Friends how strong the feeling is not only on this side of the House but amongst hon. Members opposite—all three of them. We are the guardians of justice.

Mr. Mitchison: I have not spoken yet.

Sir W. Taylor: I would never attempt to commit in advance the hon. and

learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). I have listened to him for far too long—and I mean "long"—ever to do that. I shall listen to what he has to say tonight with great interest, because I believe that as a great constitutional lawyer he will support what I am saying about the principles of British justice. I repeat that justice should not only be done but should be seen to be done. It is not seen to be done in the Order. I register my protest against the Order and I hope that the Under-Secretary when he replies will tell us that he will reconsider the terms upon which these settlements are to be made.

11.27 p.m.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: I am not sure that what I want to say at the beginning ought not to be raised as a point of order. However, because I intend no discourtesy to the Chair, I will put it to my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary. Neither the Long Title nor the Preamble to the Act upon which the Order depends mentions the word "final". The Order is introduced as a Final Distribution Order, but the word "final" does not appear in the Act. The only adjective used in the Long Title and the Preamble to describe compensation is "additional". If this matter were closely examined with that in mind it might be found that the Order is not strictly within the rules of the House.
Whether that be so or not, even if the rules of the House can be skated over as thinly as that, it is very unfortunate indeed that when it is deliberately intended that an Act should enable the payment of sums as a final settlement the word "final" occurs nowhere in the Act. I am not trying to blame my hon. Friend in the least for this. It was clear from speeches he made and from the statement he made before the Bill received a Third Reading that it was intended that payments under the Order would be final. I am not complaining of what he said in his speeches, but when an Act is introduced to achieve a certain purpose it is very wrong to qualify that purpose and disguise what the real purpose is in the wording of the Act.
I have very deep sympathy indeed for the Joint Under-Secretary. I know that he has fought a great battle. However, the Bill reeks of another Department.
It reeks of the Treasury. Whenever I think of the Treasury I always remember a very well respected hon. Member, who was a great friend of many of us on this side, but who is now, alas, no longer with us. once telling me that a retired senior officer of the Inland Revenue once boasted to him that every single year he had been in his position he could with pride say that the Inland Revenue had got more out of the taxpayers than it was really entitled to get. That is the attitude of the Treasury, to try to get more from the taxpayers and pay out less than it should.
Never was there a more dangerous exercise than the one it has just indulged in. Honour is at stake here—not only the honour of men, not only the honour of the nation, not only the honour of Parliament. The honour of the country in the eyes of foreigners is at stake here.
I intervene in the debate principally because I was in on the first event which had anything to do with the rise of Nasser when I marched into the Abdin Palace by the side of the British Ambassador at the beginning of 1942. If one reads the philosophy of the revolution written by Nasser himself one can see that that is what sparked off his rise to power. I very well remember that when Sir Anthony Eden, as he then was, undertook the Suez engagement he said that the purpose of it was to protect, amongst other things, British property. He did not distinguish between property owned by shareholders of companies and private property. He said "British property "—of all descriptions.
My hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State has been absolutely frank with the House. I congratulate him on his frankness. He said this Order was based on hardship grounds. I know than it was, and much as I am anxious to help those in the gravest need of all, I would say, let no one suppose that what we are doing is just. We are doing a grave injustice to all those to whom we are not paying 100 per cent. In other words, this Order does not pretend to be founded on justice.

Mr. Hirst: Not even on hardship grounds is it entirely valid. A very large company which lost a sales office gets £10,000 while hundreds of poor little people cannot even get a widow's mite.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I think my hon. Friend slightly misunderstood me. I said everyone who, under the Order, does not get 100 per cent. is suffering injustice, whether a company or an individual.
I hope that the Government will not finally slam the door on this one proposition which I have put forward. There are only two ways in which the Government can redeem the honour of the country.

Mr. Bence: The honour of the Government.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: The honour of the Government and of Members of this House. They must either take out the word "final" wherever it occurs in this Order and reintroduce the Order, or alternatively they must undertake from now on to fight tooth and nail to get the Egyptians to stop up the deficiency. Those are the only two ways left open to the Government to redeem themselves.
Because I do not want to delay payment of 100 per cent. to 90 per cent. of the claimants, I would hate to stop this Order, but it does seem to me that we ought at least to ensure that further consideration is given to either of those two ways. Either the Government, through the unfortunate taxpayers of this country, pay off the remaining deficiency, or we hold the Egyptians to what we said we would hold them, namely, to pay full compensation.

11.27 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: Onerous as it is to follow on so eloquent and forcible a speech, I think it is about time that something was said——

Mr. Hirst: It has all been said very well.

Mr. Mitchison: —from this side of the House, I having paid very great attention to what has been said from the other. Let me remind hon. Members of one or two things they have said. According to the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst), the Government have ratted on their undertaking. We notice they do that from time to time. According to another hon. Member, the Prime Minister has misled the House and the country. We notice he does that from time to time. According to another hon. Member the honour of the country, the Government, and ourselves is at stake. That


was the last speaker, the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke). According to a previous speaker, it is a shame to belong to the Tory Party any longer. The remedy is quite simple.

Sir W. Taylor: On a point of order. The hon. and learned Member should not put words into my mouth. All I said was that I was ashamed that my party had put its name to the Order before the House.

Mr. Mitchison: I do not think that the difference is material.

Sir W. Taylor: The difference is material to me.

Mr. Mitchison: If the hon. Member feels that strongly about it his remedy is quite easy; he can refuse the party Whip. But that is up to him and I will not give way again, because there is no more to be said on that score.
What amuses me about all this—and I can legitimately be amused—is that hon. Members opposite are the very people who voted for and supported the whole Suez adventure. This is just the tail end of the bill. It is they who caused the bill to come into being. There would not be a bill had they not supported the Government in the Suez adventure, or "insane adventure" as I understand the Daily Telegraph called it. We hear quite a lot about Tory policy. My version of it in this case is that they are trying to get some other people out of the consequences of their own idiocy in a previous Parliament. Why do not hon. Members opposite vote against the Order? Suez was an idiotic adventure. We can see how idiotic it was when we consider the real point; that this Government do not compensate their own nationals for the misdeeds, mistakes or failures of the policies of some other Government.
If one goes to America and thinks one is being unfairly or unduly taxed one does not expect compensation from the Treasury here. If one's property is dealt with in some way one may disapprove, but one does not expect compensation from the Treasury here. It is surely well known to all hon. Members that that general principle has been well and firmly established for very many years. The only reason why the Government are taking on themselves the burden of

supplementing the amount being contributed by the United Arab Republic—as I must now call them—is that they recognise that it is all their fault. It was, of course, the fault of the Government supporters whom I see opposite mourning the misfortunes of the small and widowed shareholders of some company or other. They caused it all—hon. Members opposite.
If all this trouble has led to misfortune and misery for the poor shareholders of the Bradford Dyers' Association, hon. Members opposite are responsible for it all. They caused the whole trouble and it is only on that account that any compensation whatever is being paid in circumstances in which, had the Government not made the mistake, no compensation at all would have been paid. It is ridiculous to hear the very people who voted firmly for the Suez adventure, who stood by it through thick and thin—who, I think, appointed or helped to appoint or who supported the present Prime Minister—getting up now and howling like mad at the consequences of what they themselves did at the time.
Really! What is hyprocrisy? I do not accuse hon. Members opposite of anything but the most political form of hypocrisy. What they are saying now they most fervently believe. I give them that, but they have a wonderful capacity for forgetting their past mistakes and attributing to others those things for which they themselves are responsible. I have never before seen a better instance of that; one speaker after another using violent language as though someone other than he himself and his colleagues were the originators of all this.
Let us turn from that, and look at what has apparently caused the trouble—the Schedule. We must remember that the whole of this matter arises from the "insane adventure"—and I am sure that I can quote the Daily Telegraph; there can be nothing wrong in that—of Suez. We must begin with that. We must appreciate that people who go to trade on a large scale in any foreign country inevitably take some risk in it. We must appreciate, too, that it is the British taxpayer who is to be called upon to find the money for these claims.
I listened very carefully to what was said by hon. Members opposite by way of quotation——

Mr. Tiley: If the hon. and learned Member is using that argument, he must surely bring into account the whole of the profits and the benefit which this island people have had from the adventurers in trade who have gone out from these shores for centuries.

Mr. Mitchison: I am afraid that I really do not see the connection. Let me explain to the hon. Gentleman, since he——

Mr. Tiley: Mr. Tiley rose——

Mr. Mitchison: No, I will not give way yet. This is the result of the Government's own policy, the insane adventure at Suez, and none of these claims would have occurred, nor would any of these losses and these hardships, if the present Tory Government, or their predecessors with a different personnel, had not embarked on that adventure. I can see——

Mr. Tiley: Mr. Tiley rose——

Mr. Mitchison: Oh, no—keep quiet for a minute. The hon. Member must allow other people to make their own speeches. He has made his speech. I did not interrupt the remarkable eloquence I have heard from the other side of the House this evening, so perhaps I may be allowed to make my case—and it is a perfectly simple one. It is not a case of British trade adventuring abroad, and gallant trade risks being taken, but a piece of Government policy that led to this adventure, these misfortunes, these claims and these hardships. The question we now have to consider is what, in the light of that, is the right thing to do about it.
I call the attention of hon. Members opposite to two things. The first is that any person going to trade abroad takes a certain risk of Government action abroad for which, as a general rule, he gets no compensation at all. He gets it in this case only because it was the Government themselves who provoked the trouble. Secondly, I want to make it clear that I do not regard in quite the same way people who go to live in a country. They have less control, as a rule, over what is happening about them. The risks they take are risks that they are much more bound to take, and I think that there is something to be said for a distribution on the lines in the Schedule.
I am very surprised to find that the Schedule shocks hon. Members opposite

so much. I thought that we all paid taxes on a graduated scale, roughly according to our ability to pay or, at any rate, based on that ability to pay. When it is a question of receiving compensation from the Government, is there not something to be said, if one cannot find the whole amount—and I shall come to that aspect in a moment—for finding enough, first, for the poorer people, those who probably suffered most, before dealing with the large companies concerned? I notice that no hon. Member opposite gave any estimate whatever of the proportion that any loss bears to the actual capital of the very large companies concerned. I do not carry that information in my head, but I think I can safely say that it is nothing like as large as all that. However, that is not the point.
I am not prepared to invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to stay here and listen to what I have listened to in order to have a Division afterwards, and oblige the British taxpayer to pay full compensation in this case. Nor do I think that the two remarks that were quoted by, I think, the hon. Member for Shipley from speeches of deceased friends of mine, had any bearing on that particular point.
I turn from that to another matter. I agree that there is a lot to be said for the statement that these negotiations might have been better conducted. The Lord Privy Seal was probably busy at the time dealing with President de Gaulle, but he has conducted his negotiations with a good deal more firmness there than was shown in this case. I am disposed to agree with that comment. But how much it matters now is another question.
Here we have an agreement signed and sealed on behalf of the British Government—and I imagine that no one wishes to repudiate it now—limiting the amount which is to be contributed by the United Arab Republic. I do not know what more one can get than that amount in these circumstances. Those who talk about the honour of this country, and the rest, should be the last to suggest that having accepted this in final settlement we should ask for more. There are other things possible to do, though I am not sure whether it is in order to mention them—questions of exchange control and expediting claims, and so on.
This is the last of Suez, and it strikes me as utterly ridiculous that hon. Members opposite who supported the Suez adventure at the time should be now the first to complain at having to foot some part of the bill and yet to say that the bill is not large enough and that we ought to pay some more. I am not prepared to divide the House on any proposal to increase the burden on the British taxpayer in this matter. Perhaps in some ways it is rough justice. I notice that although when the original amount was first mentioned in the House I said that I thought it was a rather stingy settlement, the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, Leader of the Opposition in another place, took the opposite view. It is very much a matter of first impression. I certainly do not propose to say more about that side of it.
The Act under which the Order is made was brought before the House as a Bill with a very vague indication of the types of claims that would be made. We knew the principal ones. We were told that there was another group but we were never told what was the character of these other claims. It now appears from these papers taken together that these are cases of people who suffered loss, damage or injury at the material time, that is, in the course of the Suez adventure, but who are unable to substantiate the fact that they were due to Egyptian action. It is right in all the circumstances, when a rather rough settlement has to be made, that these claims should be included but should be subject to certain review as to the amount at the hands of the Commission. I am not prepared to go into the Lobby against the Order.

11.43 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: I trust that I shall not be out of order if I discuss for a few minutes the draft Statutory Instrument which is before the House rather than the history of the Suez engagement. I notice that both the back and front of the Instrument have bits of paper pasted over them. I confess that my preference would be for the paper to have been pasted over the words "Final Distribution,"
Far too often—and I mean this generally and do not apply it specifically to the Joint Under-Secretary—a Minister offers us a Statutory Instrument of some

kind which he knows to be wholly or partly unacceptable to a large number of hon. Members and endeavours to sell it on the basis that, "If you do not pass this you will be left with nothing." I find this a most reprehensible practice. It is one of the troubles of doing these things by means of Statutory Instrument that we are faced with the intolerable problem of either adopting something which one believes to have substantial defects—which is then the end of the matter—or taking it to a Division and, at least temporarily, losing some of the benefits which it contains.
Sooner or later, the House will have to decide how long it will put up with this kind of practice before it says, "Take the Instrument away. Bring it back in acceptable form." We cannot go on indefinitely like this, because the procedure is not very fair to hon. Members who have made their views absolutely clear over a very long period.
The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) put a very fair question. He asked whether 90 per cent. of the claimants were to receive 100 per cent. of their claims or 100 per cent. of what somebody else thought their claims should have been five years ago. I allude to that because there is a most unhappy recent precedent in a similar type of claim dating from 1951, where final settlement was made on the basis of a percentage of what the same compensation body believed the claims should have been worth 12 years ago. It was a valid question put by the hon. Member and one to which the House has not yet had a satisfactory answer.
I take the point which many hon. Members have made, that the magnitude of a claim in no way defines the magnitude of the individual loss suffered by the claimants as a result of the waving of the axe in this way. I feel that what is proposed is so unacceptable that, unless there is some very good reason for it, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State would be justified in asking the leave of the House to with. draw the Order tonight and bring it back in a form very much more readily acceptable by both sides of the House.

11.47 p.m.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I am sorry for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State in having to close this rather


sordid chapter, and I do not propose to go back on the history.
The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) spoke as though we were dealing with a foreign Government in the ordinary sense of that term. I think that the House realises that we have not in the past dealt with Egypt in that kind of way, as though its Government were a foreign Government. It was an entirely different relationship, and, therefore, his arguments on that score cannot be related to the claim which we now have against the Egyptian Government. His second argument related to the extent to which the large concerns are involved and what proportion of their total capital is represented by what they lost at Suez. That is not the point. The point is whether we are to meet claims 100 per cent. or not.
On 13th November, we asked my hon. Friend for details of how the money was to be paid. This Order is the result of that inquiry. We asked how he would distribute the money, and he told us that the Order would come. We have the draft Order before us now, and I submit that it has been drafted by the Department in such a way that those who would "beef" less are to get less than is to be received by those getting full compensation. The point has been very well made that, although the large claims may be for very large sums, when the money comes to be divided among the shareholders and the individuals concerned. there can be no justification whatever for applying the scale laid down in the Schedule. I do not think that my hon. Friend has any justification for it, except that—let us have this quite straight—the Government are prepared to give only a limited sum, and it is purely a question of how the money is to be divided among the relative claimants.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirrall (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), then Foreign Secretary, told us in 1957 that
The blocked accounts are our security for the claims of British subjects against the Egyptian Government. We have no intention of whittling away that position. The House can be sure of that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th May, 1957; Vol. 570, c. 584.]
Today, we are in an entirely different position. We are arguing who will get what, whereas had that statement been

adhered to as policy by the Government, there would have been no question. All claims could have been met in full by Her Majesty's Government. What has happened is that they have whittled away the accounts. My hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary will reply that the good name of the City was at stake, that we could not give away the sterling balances and we were standing guarantor for another Government. The whole thing is complete and utter nonsense. We gave away the sterling balances, in exchange for which we got a miserable £27 million, and now we have to argue in this House to whom and for what the compensation will be paid.
I want to know from my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary whether, if the money to which we agree in the Order runs out, there will be any more for those who, we find later, can register a reasonable claim. Secondly, I wish to know whether this money will be taxed. If my hon. Friend's memory is sufficiently long, he will remember that the compensation given to the Suez Company by direct agreement with the Egyptian Government was taxed by Her Majesty's Government, thus adding insult to injury. What category of people still remain outside the claim which we are now deciding? How many of them are there, and what sum is involved?
People who are in this country find it difficult to establish their claims with documentary or other evidence. Will my hon. Friend use his good offices to ensure that these people are given the maximum help in establishing their claims? As was mentioned in the debate on 13th November, certain cash balances were put into the hands of neutral Governments. Because of exchange arrangements, there have been difficulties in getting this money converted into sterling. Will my hon. Friend, please, ensure that arrangements are made with the Egyptian Government whereby those cash funds which were deposited with neutral embassies are free to be converted to sterling in this country?
Finally, will my hon. Friend ensure that if we approve the Order tonight, it will not in any sense represent a final distribution and that if there are claimants who are outside the scope of the Order, they will receive proper compensation?

11.53 p.m.

Mr. P. Thomas: I should like to reply briefly to some of the points which have been raised in this interesting and forceful debate. I should, perhaps, remind the House that the Order relates to the payment of claims in respect of Egyptianised properly and also the payment of claims in regard to loss of sequestrated property. In addition, it relates to the payment of claims which were hitherto registered but for which there was no provision for payment.
Therefore, although I should like to answer many of the points which have been raised during the debate, including matters concerning sequestrated property and the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn), I should be out of order if I did not deal solely with the matters contained in the Order. All I can say to my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham is that we are deeply conscious of the need to move as fast as possible in the matters to which he referred concerning frozen assets. We will certainly give every assistance to those people.
Several of my hon. Friends were kind enough to say how sorry they were for me. I must say that I feel a little sorry for myself because most of my hon. Friends have concentrated on one matter and one only—that there must be greater payments to the bigger claimants.

Sir W. Taylor: We asked for fair shares for all. We said that what there is should be fairly spread out.

Mr. Thomas: I will accept the principle that when there is a debt which requires to be discharged there should be fair shares for all. I accept the principle, as instanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) and my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow), who said that if an official receiver were to say to creditors, "The smaller ones will be paid at a higher rate and the bigger ones at a lower rate", that would be inequitable. Of course it would be. But that presupposes that this compensation amounts to a debt which should be discharged by the Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "What else is it?"] I cannot accept that that is so.
As I have said, we see this as something new, and we have based ourselves in rela-

tion to it on hardship grounds. If one is to look at it on grounds of hardship, then I submit that a system of graduated payments is the only one which can be used and is, as has been pointed out in this debate, one that has precedents in this country.
I ask my hon. Friends to think about this: every assessed claim up to £10,000 will be paid in full. There are over 4,000 of these claims. I will give the House a few figures. Up to £10,000 there are 4,100 such claimants; between £10,000 and £50,000 there are 225; between £50,000 and £500,000 there are 100; between £500,000 and £1 million there are 7; between £1 million and £2 million there are 5 and over £2 million there are 5.
If the claims were to be paid in full, as was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke), it would mean an extra £43 million. The Government would have to find this extra money and I submit that we cannot ask the British taxpayer to find that sum of money to meet these claims.

Mr. Bence: The Government should not have gone into Suez.

Mr. Thomas: I do not know whether my hon. Friend has even looked at the implications of the Order. When he talks about how we must think of the human side, in terms of companies involving people, then I reply that of course we do. I repeat that there is no difference made in this Order between a company and an individual. If a company has an assessed claim of any amount, it will be met in this Order in the same way as an individual's assessed claim would be. Naturally, when we get to the big claims—for instance the claim of £17 million which is the claim of the British American Tobacco Company—clearly they would be claims owned by companies, but there are claims, and substantial ones, which are owned by individuals.

Sir J. Barlow: My hon. Friend talks about the same treatment for the individual claimant as for the large claimant. The individual claimant gets full payment up to £10,000. The British American Tobacco Company has more than 12,000 people who are shareholders


holding less than £200 each. Is it equity to treat the whole of the B.A.T.C. as an individual?

Mr. Thomas: The B.A.T.C. shareholders are very fortunate, because they have extremely good shares.

Mr. Mitchison: Mr. Mitchison rose——

Mr. Thomas: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman would allow me to answer this point first.
If one considers the B.A.T.C., any adverse effect that it suffered as the result of Suez—if one is to calculate adverse effect in regard to the value of its shares and the size of its dividends—was very temporary. If one looks at the shares and dividends today, I would say that the shares do not show that there is any adverse effect by the losses in Egypt.

Sir W. Taylor: That is not the point.

Mr. Thomas: I did not put it as the point. My hon. Friends have talked about shareholders. If they are putting their case on the ground that individual shareholders are suffering as a result of the losses in Egypt, I submit that except in one or two cases that is not apparent. If we are going to use the principle of hardship, I submit that it is the people who have found it difficult, or would find it difficult, to recover from their losses who should be helped. Therefore, when we had a certain amount of money, as indeed we had—and I must tell the House quite frankly that the prospects of getting any more money were very remote—I think that we were generous with the money that we had.
Having only a certain amount of money, one must ask how it is to be divided. I have not heard any suggestions from my hon. Friends how it should be divided, but they know that if 50 per cent. or 100 per cent. is to be paid, or there are to be equal shares, it will mean that the majority of the claimants, those with very small claims, those with claims up to £10,000, will get less than they have not only under this Order, but under the Interim Distribution Order. I submit, therefore, that those are the points at which one has to look in assessing this Order.

Mr. Mitchison: This is what I wanted to point out earlier. The claimants in

the case of these large companies are the companies. In many of these, for instance the B.A.T.C., quite a large proportion of these claimants are foreign nationals who, if they were claiming as individuals, would have no claim against the Treasury.

Mr. Thomas: I did not want to go into individual companies. I have a list of the companies, and I could tell the House exactly what share of a company's assets was in Egypt. My hon. Friend mentioned Bradford Dyers. The assets of this company in Egypt represented 15 per cent. of its total assets. If we are looking at the matter from the point of view of hardship we must take this into account.
It all comes down to the point that if there wore a duty on the part of the Government Ito pay in full I would accept the principle, but as I cannot accept that principle I say that the system which we have adopted—a system of graduated payments—is reasonable and equitable, bringing the relief where relief is needed, namely, to the vast majority of claimants, and in particular to those with small claims.

Mr. Wall: My lion. Friend has told the House that this is the final settlement in respect of Egyptianised property. Can he give an assurance that there will be no finality in the Government's efforts on behalf of those people whose property has been improperly sequestrated? Will the Government go on trying to obtain justice for those people?

Mr. Thomas: I am very embarrassed by that question, because I think I would be out of order if I attempted to answer it. This is intended to be the final distribution Order in respect of the payment of compensation for Egyptianised property and loss or damage in connection with sequestrated property, and the loss of property involved in those claims which are registered. Any other matters relating to the statement that I made on 11th December are administrative ones, and I announced in the House that it was intended that this should be the final settlement. But obviously, as my hon. Friend knows, there are ways open to hon. Members to query the amount, or to do whatever they like.

Mr. Hirst: I have two points. First, my hon. Friend has failed to answer a


material point in respect of which many people would like an answer, namely, what is the position if the sum of money now being added for the dispensation of the foreign compensation provisions is not enough to meet properly assessed claims arising out of damage and sequestration? Will the amount be topped up to meet the claims?
Secondly, cannot my hon. Friend take this Order away, think again, and put something decent in front of us?

Mr. Thomas: I am sorry that I did not answer the first point raised by my hon. Friend. I have a note of it, but I am afraid that I have been so overawed by the speeches from my back benches that I can hardly read my notes. It is quite right that claims not yet finalised, assessed and approved will be paid according to the scales laid down in the Order. We have estimated that the extra amount—together with the registered claims—will be £6·3 million, but if it doss not reach the full amount of the claims obviously we will pay according to the assessments, and an extra amount will have to be provided.

Dr. Alan Glyn: How does my hon. Friend reconcile this proportionate payment with what was said in the House by his hon. Friend on 16th May, 1957, namely,
Removal or modification of the restrictions must naturally depend upon satisfactory arrangements covering all the financial claims against Egypt."——[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th May, 1957; Vol. 570, c. 584.]

Mr. Thomas: I accept that I was not clear about this when I moved the Motion, but I 'thought that I dealt with the matter when I said that we must start from the Anglo-U.A.R. agreement of February, 1959. That agreement was approved by 'the House, and from then onwards it is what is said in relation to that agreement which counts—and it is a final settlement from Egypt's point of view.
My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely said that we should ask the United Arab Republic for more money. We cannot do so, because we have accepted this agreement. Therefore, this agreement having been accepted by the House, I would remind my hon. Friends and the House of the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Prime

Minister, namely, that he was not making any pledge, but did not exclude the possibility of a payment out of public funds.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved.
That the Foreign Compensation (Egypt) (Final Distribution) Order, 1963, a draft of which was laid before this House on 22nd January, be approved.

ESTIMATES

Mr. David Gibson-Watt discharged from the Estimates Committee: Mr. Anthony Kershaw added.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Mr. William Whitlock discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts; Mr. Tam Dalyell added.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]

SOCIAL CHANGES IN GREAT BRITAIN

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chichester-Clark.]

12.11 a.m.

Mrs. Judith Hart: I wish to introduce a discussion on a document which, in the light of what has been a most fascinating debate, must seem an innocuous affair. I have very much enjoyed the entertainment which hon. Members opposite have provided during the last two hours. It was an interesting reflection on the present state of the party opposite which revealed the inner contradictions of capitalism most aptly.
I regard it as very fortunate to have the opportunity tonight to raise the question of a document issued by the Central Office of Information in December last year, which the Minister without Portfolio said was issued under his authority, but which was not thought to be suitable for issue as a White Paper. This he said in reply to Questions asked by my hon. Friends shortly before Christmas. The document was made available in the Library in duplicated form some little time after it had been issued


to the Press. It appeared in a rather unusual form in that it is a duplicated document with a heading "Social Changes in Great Britain", without any indication of who wrote it, where it comes from or its purpose. One suspects—I may have base suspicions—that it was, in part at least, one of the first efforts of the new Minister after his appointment to brighten up his Press relations. Perhaps he thought it a good idea to issue a document to the Press which had a little more sparkle about it than the normally rather dull Government publication.
While he may have a perfectly natural desire to give to the Press material concerning the social conditions of people in this country presented in an interesting way and presented with as much exciting detail as possible. he will in fact be contravening a most important principle of Parliamentary government in this country if he issues any more documents of this character in this way. I go on to say why I make that categorical statement.
This is a document which purports to give facts derived from various factual inquiries carried out in Britain over the last few years. In particular it purports to give facts derived from the preliminary results of the 1961 census, although some facts, I think, must have been derived from some other perfectly reliable Government sources.
I do not complain about the facts presented in the document. What I complain of is that for every fact there is a comment and the comments are individual comments. With some one might agree and with others one might violently disagree. The point is not whether one agrees or disagrees with the comments, but that value judgments are made side by side with the facts, value judgments issued by a Government Department in an unsigned document which therefore carries all the weight of Government behind it. This is a dangerous principle.
The duty of the Government in this respect increases with every year that passes in the age in which we live today, in which life is much more complicated, in which we have far more statistical techniques at our disposal to discover information for ourselves. The duty of the Government is now much greater than it

was to issue as much factual information as they can so that we may attempt ourselves to judge what kind of society we are moving towards. Facts must obviously be the basis of social and political judgments.
It is not the function of the Government themselves to confuse fact and judgment, and they must not do so. They do so in this document. I want to quote some examples of the way in which they do so. On page 1 the document says:
The 1951 census … photographed the British people after they had been changed successively by the worst despairing years of economic depression … and a greatly diminished standing in the world as a whole.
This is not a fact. It is not a fact in the sense that it cannot be challenged. It is a value judgment. When I was being trained in sociology, one of the first things I learned, and indeed when I was training students in sociology, one of the first things I had to impress upon them, was the crucial importance of separating fact from value judgment in any field of social activity.
Is it true that there was a greatly diminished standing in the world as a whole for Britain in 1951? There are many people who would strongly challenge this assertion. I will not go into the argument. The Minister can imagine for himself the argument I could make tonight in support of a claim that in 1951 after the activities of the Labour Government we had a far higher standing in the world than we had ever had before, and that our economic achievements from 1945 to 1951 were such as to give us a greater standing. I do not want to try to make the argument tonight. The statement in this document is not a fact. It is a judgment and has no right to be contained in an unsigned document issued with every Government authority.
On page 3 there is a discussion of immigration. It is said that for the first time colour strife became
a factor of any seriousness in Britain.
This statement is made of the late fifties. The document goes on to say this:
… in the past quarter-century Britain has taken in the sad total—or, if one prefers. proud total—of about 330,000 refugees …
The statement—
sad total—or, if one prefers, proud total"—


makes good journalism. I do not doubt that, but it is certainly not good Government factual information. The Minister will be the first to recognise that, skilled as he is at judging what is journalism and what is not.
I come to matters which are rather more serious than that. I turn for a good bit of journalese to page 7. It talks of a survey in 1954 on the length of time spent by people working in Central London in travelling to their homes in the suburbs. It quotes a fact established from the survey that on average 1½ hours are spent by people
each day travelling from home and back again.
It then goes on to say that a train which is late could mean a ruined evening and
loudspoken apologies at the stations seem to do little to soothe savage breasts.
One suspects that the author of the document is here simply quoting from the chitter-chatter in his own compartment on his own regular 6.15 train home every evening. This is not the kind of thing one expects to find in a Government document supplying factual information about the condition of the British people in 1961 or 1962.
Let us turn to another part a little later where the report describes the picture of the majority of people who have what it calls middle-level incomes. It says this:
It is, of course, the solid middle-class suburban range … It must be essentially a picture of a swelling middle class migrating when it can into outlying, rural, suburban areas … around the great cities. That is now the dominant portrait of John Bull.
It is not merely the fact that a judgment is being made that one challenges: it is indeed the inaccuracy of the picture, and here, for the first time, I would criticise the actual content, as against the style of writing, of the judgment in this document, because the dominant portrait of John Bull could equally be said to be the average wage earner who now earns £15 a week and who certainly does not live in a suburban middle-class house, commuting to his office in the City. The picture of John Bull, if one is to take the average—and this document is very fond of averages and deducing from averages—is the picture of the skilled worker living in a council flat or council house or waiting for a council house or

council flat. Therefore, although it may have been thought by the author to be a self-obvious fact, it is in fact a judgment of a fact which may apply equally to a minority of people, people earning higher incomes than the average wage of £15 a week.
Now let us look at where the document makes comments on health. It makes this most remarkable statement and this one wants to challenge in a little more detail. It says that enough good food is going into every home. This is the statement on page 13:
The health of the Briton further improved during the decade …
This is a total misuse of statistics and averages. One can look at the recent Annual Report of the National Food Survey Committee on "Domestic Food Consumption and Expenditure: 1960". It says:
The average household diet in 1960 met the recommended allowances.
Those are the allowances for protein and so on. One supposes that that was taken to confirm this statement that enough good food goes into every home. One has only to look a little later in the Survey to inquire into the protein and calcium intake in large families in the lower income groups in 1960. In families with four or more children only 82 per cent, of the recommended allowances of protein was taken in and only 80 per cent. of the recommended allowance of calcium was in fact taken. Here is factual evidence in a Government publication which completely contradicts the other statement that enough good food goes into every home. If anything will convince the Minister that this paper is not what it ought to be, that ought to do it. What the man, whoever prepared this paper, has done is to give an incorrect impression of what can be deduced from averages. I hope that in no other document issued by the Government in the future shall we find any such distortion as that.
We get references to the behaviour of the young. I pass briefly over this statement that
there has been a most alarming development of crime amongst boys and young men.
A curiously subjective statement: it may be alarming to some but not to others. There is a statement on page 15 about


this so-called alarming increase in crime among the young. We get this:
Whether these crimes of violence are instigated by the incessant programmes of violence on television is a matter of opinion, but undoubtedly the strong flood of violence among youngsters has swept in since commercial television began.
Here he admits, at last, that something may be a matter of opinion. Undoubtedly there has been a flood of violence, but should it have been put in that way? I have the greatest respect for those who work in the Central Office of Information. I had a great respect for their wartime Social Survey and I worked closely with them. But to say this is to select one possible theory of the causes of delinquency, a theory which is highly challenged and one, indeed, which has been strongly refuted by intellectual evidence, including the Hemelwhite Survey.
The trouble is that the statement I have quoted is made with the sanction of the Minister, issued as an unsigned Government document with all the authority of the Government behind it putting forward the facts of Britain today.
Most social workers are convinced that standards of sexual morality among young people, and even among schoolchildren, have steeply declined during the decade.
Which social workers? This is a matter of great controversy among social workers. One cannot make such allegations without giving the sources of one's information, quoting speeches made at discussions and conferences. However, there is no effort to substantiate the statement in this case. Dealing with the use of leisure, the document states:
… the quality of leisure and the uses to which it is nut have changed a great deal.
That might seem an innocent and fair statement, but when one says that the quality of leisure has changed, one is making a value judgment because one is judging quality. It is not a factual concept but a concept governed by a personal opinion and a personal background, and not a scientific establishable fact. The next part of the document is, perhaps, the most astonishing. He discusses holidays and the way in which youngsters go on foot and hitchhike abroad. He says:
Whatever one thinks of the dubious practice of cadging lifts, here undoubtedly is a spirit and an enterprise which the parents of these youngsters rarely displayed.

Did they not? Was there no enterprise among people when they marched hundreds of miles on hunger marches? Was there not enterprise of an even greater degree when people travelled vast distances in the days of the depression before the war in an effort to solve the problems of their families? The Minister may have his opinion. I am entitled to mine, but a single person's opinion represented here as fact is not good enough.
I hope I have established that this is a document which should not have been issued as an unsigned Government sanctioned piece of factual information to the Press or anyone else. It would have been perfectly proper had it been issued as a signed paper produced by one of the Minister's staff. Perhaps this would not have been possible in the C.O.I, but I know that in some Government Departments professional employees are able to publish papers in official journals. That would have been an appropriate course to have taken in this case, with the name of the writer attached so that everyone would have known that the judgments were the judgments of one person. Otherwise it should not have been issued at all.
I hope that in any future work designed to introduce dynamism in Government publicity—and it is an excellent aim that the Minister should want to make the facts about what Governments do more interesting to the general public—the right hon. Gentleman will ensure that such documents contain either intellectual, scientific facts based on evidence that can be quoted—and in such a case it is perfectly proper to issue it with all the sanction and authority of his Department—or eliminate from any such document or report the element of value judgment and personal prejudice.

12.29 a.m.

The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. W. F. Deedes): I know that the hon. Lady the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) will allow me to say that she is a sociologist of some distinction. She has, I know, a degree of the first class in the honours school of sociology, and her professional career as a sociologist has included work for the Ministry of Health and work in the Scottish town of East Kilbride, which I had the pleasure of visiting the other day. To some extent, therefore, I am flattered that this document should have attracted her interest,


and I have listened to her views with respect, even if I do not accept them.
Sociology is a science, and I can well see, and accept, that there are aspects of the paper which offend the canons which she was trained to respect, as all sociologists do. I also take her point with which I shall deal, about it being a Government document. I was well aware when I embarked on this exercise that the paper was open to the sort of ticking off which the hon. Lady has just given me, and I do not resent it at all.
Before meeting some of the points made by the hon. Lady, it might help if I were to say something about the background to this exercise which, I will admit, was a little unusual. Quite early in this job, it occurred to me that it might be helpful to provide certain people, including my own colleagues, with a paper that summarised the principal social changes of the last decade. This clearly had to be based on facts. There are a surprising number of facts going round Government Departments that never see the light of day. At the same time, the people I had in mind spend a lot of time reading facts, and it was rather desirable that the facts should be incorporated in a paper that was, to say the least of it, readable. Up to there, I do not think that the hon. Lady will quarrel with me.
We gathered the facts, and I am grateful to know that she does not quarrel with them. I have the annotated copy, and the facts have a respectable basis. After they were selected, we picked on an outside author to put them together. His identity has not been disclosed, and I think ought not to be disclosed. I will say why. There is nothing mysterious, and there is nothing to conceal. The author's identity would create very little surprise or criticism on the other side.

Mrs. Hart: May I say how glad I am that it was not one of the right hon. Gentleman's own C.O.I. people.

Mr. Deedes: The author wrote the paper on the understanding that it would be without his name on it, and it is fair and right to respect that understanding. I can only assure the hon. Lady that if she were to know the name I do not think that she would have any really serious criticism to make. It was an outside author chosen, if I may say so, in order that the document might be reasonably attractive to read——

Mr. Tom Driberg: I hope that he was paid an adequate fee.

Mr. Deedes: Yes—he was paid £100. The cost altogether was, I think, pretty modest and, if I may say so, justified by the value of the paper in the hands of the people whom I thought might find it useful.
There the matter rested, and I resisted some suggestions that it should be published until some weeks later, when, from origins quite unconnected with the paper—and I give the hon. Lady this asssurance because I think that she is seriously concerned with it—a decision was taken to set up a committee to study social changes, and what is being done by Government Departments and the universities, and to make arrangements for co-ordinating this research.
It occurred to me, and it is part of the job to let such things occur to one, that such a decision might lead people—not like the hon. Lady—to ask what it was all about. It also occurred to me that in itself the decision to set up the committee offered some answer to questions that would be asked if we published the paper. In other words, if we published the paper, people would ask, "What's the point of this? What do we get next?" The answer would then be that social studies were to be taken rather more seriously, as I am sure the hon. Lady would desire, and not left to such, as she would have it, amateurish papers of this kind. In the light of this reflection, I released the paper. This again was against the impressive and not unconnected background of the proposal to pursue social studies.
I did this on a limited scale, which I think puzzled some people, because I did not think that such an exercise ought to involve the expenditure of very much public money. Ultimately we had 180 individual requests for 676 copies, including 43 from the House of Commons. There was a copy in the Library on the day it was published, and 152 copies were also requested for the Foreign Office.
Quite apart from this, it seemed to me that there was a very good reason why the paper should have been made public. One receives a good deal of advice in this job and much of it can be summed up as,"Tell people the facts and in language


they understand". This is excellent advice and I often wondered what would happen if one took it and what the result would be. Now I know—an Adjournment debate and the strictures of the hon. Lady. I do not wish to make a great deal of her point about the responsibility of the Government for opinion. This process involved the expression of opinion by the one individual who wrote the paper and the hon. Lady criticised it. I readily admit that it was one man. It was a better paper for that reason and for not being a consensus of opinion as it might have become from a committee. To that extent we are vulnerable and I am vulnerable and I entirely take the hon. Lady's point about Government authority in such circumstances.
But I suggest that we should have been much more vulnerable if we had done what we did not do, which was to alter, change or water down any of the writing in the original document. I thought it was better to subject it to possible criticism than to tinker with the document in any way. I preferred that that should not be done. In the event, no change was made and I prefer the hon. Lady's criticism, which she is perfectly entitled to make, to any sense of guilt that the document was in any way altered to make it fit for public consumption.

Mrs. Hart: If only the right hon. Gentleman had said at the beginning of the paper that it was the opinion of one person, even if he could not have given the name.

Mr. Deedes: I accept that. It has been suggested that this was an exercise in political propaganda. The hon. Lady was good enough not to make that point. It emphatically was not, and it would be expected that where such an obvious charge could be made he would be a great fool who would encounter it. It seemed to me that even the risk of that charge and of an Adjournment debate ought to be taken for the sake of stimulating some awareness in people's minds of what had been going on in this country. That seemed to me most important.
I do not share the hon. Lady's professional qualifications but even without them I think it permissible to feel a sense of the profound importance of the social

change going on in the country and a desire that others should be interested in it. The root of my desire to make these facts known was a reflection of the feeling that sometimes the country is in danger of becoming blind to the meaning of its own progress.
Of course it might have been better done. I accept the hon. Lady's criticism, and such exercises need not be repeated in view of what I have said about what I hope will be the future course. I know that sociologists like to move cautiously in these matters. But, once in a while, perhaps it is a good thing to try something a little bolder. Of course, we must not deliberately mislead. I do not think that this paper is open to that charge. It provided people with facts about themselves, and people love facts about themselves. It will, I hope, stimulate the desire to know more about ourselves. It may help to set a course which, I believe, the hon. Lady herself desires to see followed.
I give her this undertaking. If I am tempted at any future date to initiate a similar exercise, I undertake to seek her advice, not for her political views but for her excellent professional qualifications.

Mr. Driberg: All that the hon. Gentleman has been saying in the last minute or two is an argument for the widest possible distribution of this document. He says that it opens people's eyes to what is going on, will help to make them realise the facts, and so on. If he has the courage of his convictions, he should publish it as a White Paper. However, I agree with my hon. Friend that it should be a signed document, a sort of discussion pamphlet, if the Government had the machinery for publishing that kind of thing.

Mr. Deedes: The hon. Gentleman has heard my point about public expense. He will realise also that the free institutions of the Press gave it very generous treatment and to a great extent enabled——

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Tuesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at nineteen minutes to One o'clock.